Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by spider View Post
    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.
    what's in the public domain is standard endurance of all NS vessels is 21 days and a standard patrol is 3 weeks.


    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I wonder are there any in service.
    At least 1 in service and at least 2 building.

    It's a development of the 4207, which has 23 in service and 14 building (excluding the USCG Sentinel class which will be another 58 vessels).


    Are you trolling???

    Comment


    • #62
      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?
      There are a lot of people here eager to have a 2nd base for the NS somewhere on the west coast. There is no Logic to this. The fuel argument is a red herring because you can get fuel at whatever port you pull into. As it stands the NS already refuels its ships in Donegal.
      When the rest of the defence force is reducing the number of operating locations and split units to shorten the logs tail why should the NS do the opposite?

      So lets draw a line under the second base notion once and for all? It is not needed. The only ones who think it is are those who want to see navy ships but don't want to go to Cork. Galway does not have the facilities its expansion plans are just that, plans. Nothing has even been approved yet. A ship going to Galway at present is stuck there till the next tide. There is no suitable port on the west coast.
      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


      • #63
        Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
        There are a lot of people here eager to have a 2nd base for the NS somewhere on the west coast. There is no Logic to this. The fuel argument is a red herring because you can get fuel at whatever port you pull into. As it stands the NS already refuels its ships in Donegal.
        When the rest of the defence force is reducing the number of operating locations and split units to shorten the logs tail why should the NS do the opposite?

        So lets draw a line under the second base notion once and for all? It is not needed. The only ones who think it is are those who want to see navy ships but don't want to go to Cork. Galway does not have the facilities its expansion plans are just that, plans. Nothing has even been approved yet. A ship going to Galway at present is stuck there till the next tide. There is no suitable port on the west coast.
        +1

        It would be a backward step and we would probably talking about a max of a patrol of 7 days (due to accommodation on board) in some cases (due to go accommodation) it would be limited to <24 hours.

        The Peacocks go out to max 50-80 nm off the coast, such smaller vessels couldn't do that.

        Comment


        • #64
          how many ports do other island nations of similiar coastline size and population and sea territory require and what size fleets do they have?
          Surely we rather need to invest in what we currently have, increase capability, as mentioned changes are most likely required to the basin itself, possibly enlarging the entrance to it and increasing the capacity if the whitepaper sees us needing to expand the fleet / use larger vessels.
          "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
          "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

          Comment


          • #65
            Put it to you like this gents, we have a fleet of eight ships, one base is more than enough in all fairness, especially if the NS can refuel elsewhere. There is little point in splitting resources over more than one location.
            What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

            Comment


            • #66
              Just had a look at the draft of the ports (including some fishing one) - if replacing like with like it needs to be <3 metres (Peacocks are 2.72).

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                Just had a look at the draft of the ports (including some fishing one) - if replacing like with like it needs to be <3 metres (Peacocks are 2.72).
                Most navies historically develop ports for the unique use and repair of their own ships. We inherited Haulbowline with it's own Basin, repair shops and Drydock and pumphouses. Over time backs were turned on the drydock and Hammond Lane got the gates. However we still have a mini naval port, easily controlled and secured.
                To find a similar exclusive facility would require building one or getting a lease on the inside and outside of the North Wall at the old Point Depot area in Dublin with secure gates and a pound area for portacabins etc. Most would be against splitting resources, unless it became a matter of an enlarged Navy. There is no similar port available on the West Coast which is our area of strategic interest. We must use vessels of unrestricted use otherwise you come up against the choice of not being Good to Go. Any replacement should be sea kindly, robust, and decent patrol endurance. Don't buy ships which if dispatched at speed to a rescue 200/300m offshore, and a day or two on scene, doesn't have enough fuel to stay with a casualty or get home.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  Most navies historically develop ports for the unique use and repair of their own ships. We inherited Haulbowline with it's own Basin, repair shops and Drydock and pumphouses. Over time backs were turned on the drydock and Hammond Lane got the gates. However we still have a mini naval port, easily controlled and secured.
                  To find a similar exclusive facility would require building one or getting a lease on the inside and outside of the North Wall at the old Point Depot area in Dublin with secure gates and a pound area for portacabins etc. Most would be against splitting resources, unless it became a matter of an enlarged Navy. There is no similar port available on the West Coast which is our area of strategic interest. We must use vessels of unrestricted use otherwise you come up against the choice of not being Good to Go. Any replacement should be sea kindly, robust, and decent patrol endurance. Don't buy ships which if dispatched at speed to a rescue 200/300m offshore, and a day or two on scene, doesn't have enough fuel to stay with a casualty or get home.

                  I'm finding it increasingly difficult to figure out if you want new CPVs to replace the Peacocks or to replace them with OPVs !?
                  You don't send a CPV 200nm into the Atlantic

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    i personally think we should order more OPVs and be done with it
                    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
                    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by whirlywind
                      Foynes is on the west coast, an hour and a half steaming from open water. A two hour road trip from HQ in Haulbowline. It is accessible 24 hours a day for vessels of the NS size. It has ample Fresh Water and Fuel available in port as well as victualing supplies. A secure area in harbour could be available for leasing as a secure pound if required. Logistically, at times, it would make sense for west coast ship replenishment rather than added steaming to Cork Harbour.
                      The NS doesn't have enough personnel as is.
                      This would involve posting personnel on shore rotation to an outpost (not good for retention).

                      The only possible valid reason for another NS base or detachments, would be the NS getting a fleet of short range patrol craft. If that was the case, we'd need a fleet of at least 6 such craft or so and bases at Haulbowline, Dublin, Limerick/Galway and Killybegs.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                        There are a lot of people here eager to have a 2nd base for the NS somewhere on the west coast. There is no Logic to this. The fuel argument is a red herring because you can get fuel at whatever port you pull into. As it stands the NS already refuels its ships in Donegal.
                        When the rest of the defence force is reducing the number of operating locations and split units to shorten the logs tail why should the NS do the opposite?

                        So lets draw a line under the second base notion once and for all? It is not needed. The only ones who think it is are those who want to see navy ships but don't want to go to Cork. Galway does not have the facilities its expansion plans are just that, plans. Nothing has even been approved yet. A ship going to Galway at present is stuck there till the next tide. There is no suitable port on the west coast.
                        I'm not suggesting a second base...never was. The suggestion was made that some of the CPV types being looked at didn't have enough range. I simply suggested that perhaps fuel and supplies could be taken to them on the West coast.

                        Now if that's already happening ie the Navy is happy to source fuel locally...then why is range such an issue for this type of ship?
                        'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          I'm finding it increasingly difficult to figure out if you want new CPVs to replace the Peacocks or to replace them with OPVs !?
                          You don't send a CPV 200nm into the Atlantic
                          I think the decision to be made here is really about getting rid of the CPV 's. They have not really moved much in the last year due to various reasons. With one decommissioned ship out of 8 in total, no sign of the new arriving any time soon and the cpv's parked up, it would make you wonder why we need 8 in the first place. Can't see why is is acceptable to have such a small number of ships at sea at any one time

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by spider View Post
                            I'm not suggesting a second base...never was. The suggestion was made that some of the CPV types being looked at didn't have enough range. I simply suggested that perhaps fuel and supplies could be taken to them on the West coast.

                            Now if that's already happening ie the Navy is happy to source fuel locally...then why is range such an issue for this type of ship?
                            It would depend on the type of patrol craft selected.

                            If something like the Customs cutters was selected, it has beds, cookers, fridge (no freezer), TV etc etc. Not sure how spacious or comfortable it is (for a 2-3 week patrol) but you may have to victual every 3 days (possibly more often depending on available storage).

                            If you go for something smaller then you need to go back to a base within max 24 hours to rest (and you need somewhere to rest).

                            If it is something along the lines of the Peacocks then you operate from Haulbowline.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ibenji View Post
                              I think the decision to be made here is really about getting rid of the CPV 's. They have not really moved much in the last year due to various reasons. With one decommissioned ship out of 8 in total, no sign of the new arriving any time soon and the cpv's parked up, it would make you wonder why we need 8 in the first place. Can't see why is is acceptable to have such a small number of ships at sea at any one time

                              The reduced sea time is due to the reasons:
                              1 - budget cuts
                              2 - the environmental issues

                              The NS requires the fleet to be at 8 hours readiness or less 90% of the year. Each vessel does around 200 days at sea annually (54% of the year), it will be in refit/maintenance around 6% of the year and the rest of the time it is available (assuming a crew is available).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                If the Peacocks were replaced with something smaller than the Becketts would there be an advantage in buying a related design? http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV62-br-web.pdf

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X