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 DeV View Post
    We also (given the role they will have) need to keep an eye on what other countries are doing/looking at:

    https://wavellroom.com/2020/04/04/hunt-the-replacement/
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ill-look-like/

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ot-in-belgium/

    https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-and-surveying

    https://youtu.be/PsjQvjfBLLU

    https://saabgroup.com/globalassets/c...nov-2017_2.pdf

    Realistically we are never going to get a dedicated MCMV CPV so we need a vessel with space for TEUs and crane/LARS
    The is an old saying about plane: "if it looks good, it will fly". Looking at what the Belgians and the Dutch have selected must rate as the ugliest naval vessel ever to be proposed. The was a half decent design from Damen but it had the wrong flag on it.

    Saab no longer has the MCMV80 on their website since the selection for Belgian Dutch contract but seeing that a derivative has already been built and in in-service (Singapore LMV) I am sure if anyone showed interest they would gladly offer it. From the design available today it seems to have the most flexibility, with many different fit-outs been proposed. Looking to the future (past Covid-19 and post MRV) if we did replace the Peacock with the Saab offering we could also take the same design as a replacement for the P50's which will be reaching the end of the 30 years lives at the end of this decade.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      The is an old saying about plane: "if it looks good, it will fly". Looking at what the Belgians and the Dutch have selected must rate as the ugliest naval vessel ever to be proposed. The was a half decent design from Damen but it had the wrong flag on it.

      Saab no longer has the MCMV80 on their website since the selection for Belgian Dutch contract but seeing that a derivative has already been built and in in-service (Singapore LMV) I am sure if anyone showed interest they would gladly offer it. From the design available today it seems to have the most flexibility, with many different fit-outs been proposed. Looking to the future (past Covid-19 and post MRV) if we did replace the Peacock with the Saab offering we could also take the same design as a replacement for the P50's which will be reaching the end of the 30 years lives at the end of this decade.
      The lead MCM expertise is that provided by the North Sea Countries which includes a common ship and an MCM school. In regard to ship design, it is unwise to have any launching system that follows the craft to be launched, towards and above the release point. If you approach marginal weather conditions, and a swell comes in and lifts the craft upwards, there is a chance of the launcher hitting the craft. The whole affair, as depicted is over designed and more suitable to a trials basin rather than a west coast or open ocean scenario

      Comment


      • Only Belgium and the Netherlands have a common ship design. The UK has two classes for mine warfare, the Norwegians also have two, the Germans have also two, and the Danes use a containerized system that they can deploy to a number of different ship type.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          Only Belgium and the Netherlands have a common ship design. The UK has two classes for mine warfare, the Norwegians also have two, the Germans have also two, and the Danes use a containerized system that they can deploy to a number of different ship type.
          It is increasingly no longer about the platform (although it has to be taken into consideration), it is about the USVs, AUVs etc that a vessel carries

          We are extremely unlikely to see an Irish dedicated MCMV

          The U.K. and France have a joint MMCM programme on them
          Last edited by DeV; 7 April 2020, 08:04.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            It is increasingly no longer about the platform (although it has to be taken into consideration), it is about the USVs, AUVs etc that a vessel carries

            We are extremely unlikely to see an Irish dedicated MCMV

            The U.K. and France have a joint MMCM programme on them
            Our neighbours are having their original pre-eminence in MCM and MCMV's winding down through age and when the last Hunts and Sandowns are gone then they must make a decision. Although they still have an expeditionary MCMV force in the Gulf they, like everybody, are being pushed by the techie companies to adopt AUV solutions to mine clearance. MCM has always been a multi faceted response to a wide range of mining, from moored fields to a wide range of influence mines. There is no guarantee as to which field or individual mine will be used. Like building ships , it would be wise to approach critical operational decisions from an Naval point of view. My own view would be a bit of both.

            Comment


            • At present the RN have no plans to replace the Hunt and Sandown classes with anything. The Hunts are rapidly reaching end of useful life, though at least their horrific Deltic engines have all been replaced with something less flammable.
              Many both within and outside the RN see this class of ship as a vital tool not just in its design purpose, but also in giving young officers experience commanding a ship before moving on to a frigate or Destroyer. Their surveying abilities proved most useful reopening the port of Basra to shipping in the aftermath of the 2nd Gulf war.
              The last of the Tupperware navy.

              Comment


              • Although the majority of future generation of MCMV all seem to rely on containerized systems with There is an issue with which type of platform that USV's, AUV's et al, there is an issue about what type of platform do you want to base them on. (Although most are now between 1800t and 2000t).

                The proposal for the Belgian/Dutch vessels is very much dedicated towards MCM, and optimized for use in the coastal waters and Belgium, Netherland as well as English Channel/altic.
                It will have some secondary ability for patrol but this will be limited.

                The Australian Navy has basically selected an OPV to provide it's future MCM capability. The Arafura class being based upon the Lurssen OPV80 design. It like most will have a containerized system but its design allows for a more multi-role ship. This means that is will be suited to patrol duties just as much as it is for MCM.

                If the intention is to replace the Peacock's with a large vessel with MCM capability then it would make more sense to have a design like the Arafura or Saab MCMV80 classes.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  Our neighbours are having their original pre-eminence in MCM and MCMV's winding down through age and when the last Hunts and Sandowns are gone then they must make a decision. Although they still have an expeditionary MCMV force in the Gulf they, like everybody, are being pushed by the techie companies to adopt AUV solutions to mine clearance. MCM has always been a multi faceted response to a wide range of mining, from moored fields to a wide range of influence mines. There is no guarantee as to which field or individual mine will be used. Like building ships , it would be wise to approach critical operational decisions from an Naval point of view. My own view would be a bit of both.
                  I would contend that it is also driven as being less risky to the mothership (or MCMV), can be done quicker and more efficiently and due to the mothership concept by non-specialist vessels (ie not MCMVs)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    Although the majority of future generation of MCMV all seem to rely on containerized systems with There is an issue with which type of platform that USV's, AUV's et al, there is an issue about what type of platform do you want to base them on. (Although most are now between 1800t and 2000t).

                    The proposal for the Belgian/Dutch vessels is very much dedicated towards MCM, and optimized for use in the coastal waters and Belgium, Netherland as well as English Channel/altic.
                    It will have some secondary ability for patrol but this will be limited.

                    The Australian Navy has basically selected an OPV to provide it's future MCM capability. The Arafura class being based upon the Lurssen OPV80 design. It like most will have a containerized system but its design allows for a more multi-role ship. This means that is will be suited to patrol duties just as much as it is for MCM.

                    If the intention is to replace the Peacock's with a large vessel with MCM capability then it would make more sense to have a design like the Arafura or Saab MCMV80 classes.
                    Or modified versions of the P50 / P60 class in our case???
                    Last edited by DeV; 7 April 2020, 11:41.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      Although the majority of future generation of MCMV all seem to rely on containerized systems with There is an issue with which type of platform that USV's, AUV's et al, there is an issue about what type of platform do you want to base them on. (Although most are now between 1800t and 2000t).

                      The proposal for the Belgian/Dutch vessels is very much dedicated towards MCM, and optimized for use in the coastal waters and Belgium, Netherland as well as English Channel/altic.
                      It will have some secondary ability for patrol but this will be limited.

                      The Australian Navy has basically selected an OPV to provide it's future MCM capability. The Arafura class being based upon the Lurssen OPV80 design. It like most will have a containerized system but its design allows for a more multi-role ship. This means that is will be suited to patrol duties just as much as it is for MCM.

                      If the intention is to replace the Peacock's with a large vessel with MCM capability then it would make more sense to have a design like the Arafura or Saab MCMV80 classes.
                      Let's trial and see hands on, what works with other equipped navies. Don't rely on the tech pedlars that are using large amounts of other peoples technology. Remember we are trying to counter a threat that is variable but amenable to production by anybody with a good tech industry. With components knowing no boundaries most bits will come from the far East.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        Let's trial and see hands on, what works with other equipped navies. Don't rely on the tech pedlars that are using large amounts of other peoples technology. Remember we are trying to counter a threat that is variable but amenable to production by anybody with a good tech industry. With components knowing no boundaries most bits will come from the far East.
                        While also trying to increase our capacity to meet the order threats the NS faces and that means an all weather PV. Generally MCMVs are relatively slow max 17kts.

                        Comment


                        • Bit on the Belgian/Dutch vessel
                          https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Mijn...ew-090320.html
                          https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Bouw...ew-060420.html
                          Last edited by DeV; 8 April 2020, 10:34.

                          Comment


                          • Hunt Class will be around until the 2030s, unless funding cuts mean they are withdrawn from service prematurely.

                            According to this article, the hulls are good for sixty years, and they are undergoing rolling refits.

                            https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/h...-mine-hunting/

                            I believe they were very expensive at the time of building, but a good investment.

                            That article also suggests that procurement for 'Motherships' to operate the autonomous drones will start around 2026, and could be anything from converted North Sea Supply ships, or something like this;

                            https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bmt...arfare-vessel/

                            All of course dependant on post COVID-19 budgets...

                            Western Mine-hunting has always very much been a coalition business;

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_1

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_2
                            'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by spider View Post
                              Hunt Class will be around until the 2030s, unless funding cuts mean they are withdrawn from service prematurely.

                              According to this article, the hulls are good for sixty years, and they are undergoing rolling refits.

                              https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/h...-mine-hunting/

                              I believe they were very expensive at the time of building, but a good investment.

                              That article also suggests that procurement for 'Motherships' to operate the autonomous drones will start around 2026, and could be anything from converted North Sea Supply ships, or something like this;

                              https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bmt...arfare-vessel/

                              All of course dependant on post COVID-19 budgets...

                              Western Mine-hunting has always very much been a coalition business;

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_1

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_2
                              Our ships have done passing exercises with Standing Nato MCM Vessels. I still think we should decide our future involvements with MCM by interacting with the practitioners who have successfully proven their systems whether autonomous or mixed with clearance diving.

                              Comment


                              • You did read it is Belgian/Dutch vessels, there lead company is French but France is not buying any.
                                Also 81.8m long and a beam of 17m! Displacement 2800t and a max speed of 15,3kts

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X