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 batterysgt View Post
    If not 113, how many is a few per unit?
    I'm not going to discuss that on a public forum and I can only comment with certainty for my own unit (which I won't).

    Comment


    • Assuming for a moment we are talking about the lake class, the NZ Navy found that crews did many tasks aboard that they did not usually do. The skill set required would be much broader than aboard an opv, seamen used to deck duty only could find they need to be well versed in the nengineering side also.
      Given how currently NSR aboard ship usually understudy in the deck role, could you find on a vessel that requires seamen to be mechs and comops too, that more would be expected from them?
      As for the RN minehunters, were these operated by the RNR or the RNR? The "wavy navy" who were already accomplished mariners in the UK's large merchant and fishing fleet? They later merged with the RNVR who like the NSR, mostly come from a civilian non maritime background.

      Comment


      • These are really a future matter to be dealt with at foundation level. The development of the NSR should be to prepare and train for seagoing duties as required by the Naval service. The enlisted at all ranks could include those professionally qualified as mariners. Ships crews could be made up of elements of NSR, and would have to include those willing to sign up for at least 6 months to meet training, and at sea experience. There would have to be an agreed undertaking with Employers to obtain releases for naval Duty.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
          I'm not going to discuss that on a public forum and I can only comment with certainty for my own unit (which I won't).
          So about 6 per unit might qualified to serve onboard ship! Less than a platoon. What exactly do you need to go to sea. Normal kpis for training and what else.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            These are really a future matter to be dealt with at foundation level. The development of the NSR should be to prepare and train for seagoing duties as required by the Naval service. The enlisted at all ranks could include those professionally qualified as mariners. Ships crews could be made up of elements of NSR, and would have to include those willing to sign up for at least 6 months to meet training, and at sea experience. There would have to be an agreed undertaking with Employers to obtain releases for naval Duty.

            Should the state top up the salary of the joiner if their is a large disparity between their pay on civi street and their pay as a recruit/OS? The above sounds wonderful but a minefield in practice.

            Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
            So about 6 per unit might qualified to serve onboard ship! Less than a platoon. What exactly do you need to go to sea. Normal kpis for training and what else.
            Not sure where you are getting the six per unit from... Going to sea requires PST (Personal Survival training) and DCFF (Damage Control and firefighting) training to be in date. A sea going medical is required annually and currently must be performed in the base hospital. Annual range and fitness shouldn't be a barrier. I'm not 100% on manual handling.

            The primary metrics the Navy would be concerned with are the PST, DCFF and medical.

            Also, the above commentary relates to NSR only.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
              So about 6 per unit might qualified to serve onboard ship! Less than a platoon. What exactly do you need to go to sea. Normal kpis for training and what else.
              Outside of normal military formation training , light weapon training, taking care of Kit and self, the sea going person has to learn and pass exams in branch training. Branch training includes those allocated to Seaman deck duties incl. Gunnery, radar op,, Engineering branch, incl. electrical and mechanician. Communication Branch , incl RRM, Comm ops. Overlaying all that is Personal Safety , damage control , familiarity and use of ship equipments and boatwork. Lastly time doing things at sea under the seatime requirements such as steering certification etc. Within the overall training anybody qualified can be a Diver or crew any weapon on board up to HMG.

              Comment


              • Seems to me, from the pr around ships in port for covid testing, the NSR are predominantly a Shore based establishment. Where only very junior ranks can assist at sea. But I'm getting way off topic. I thought this was a good opportunity for NSR to step up. And that's from talking to member in cathal brugha bks over the last few years. They made it sound like they all could put to sea and do what the navy can do.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
                  Seems to me, from the pr around ships in port for covid testing, the NSR are predominantly a Shore based establishment. Where only very junior ranks can assist at sea. But I'm getting way off topic. I thought this was a good opportunity for NSR to step up. And that's from talking to member in cathal brugha bks over the last few years. They made it sound like they all could put to sea and do what the navy can do.
                  Indeed , what's the point in having a Naval Reserve if you don't use it , the more you use it the more proficient it becomes .
                  Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

                  Comment


                  • Should the state top up the salary of the joiner if their is a large disparity between their pay on civi street and their pay as a recruit/OS? The above sounds wonderful but a minefield in practice.

                    That's like the way the RNR operate but the danger is, why join the PDF, if you can get paid the same for part time. I would have loved to have left the Army and join the RDF 2nd line and be paid for fulltime training while enjoying employee job protection, I would have left earlier.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Laners View Post
                      Indeed , what's the point in having a Naval Reserve if you don't use it , the more you use it the more proficient it becomes .
                      Absolutely. Traditionally in the MN you could have a first trip deck boy ( anyone below 16) or a first trip uncertified Ordinary seama( adult). The ship during the voyage
                      would train these newcomers on daywork until they could pass logged tests to become a qualified O/S or an experienced deck boy. All would have done 10 hours Steering( in their own time) and would be fit to join watches at mid-voyage. In the NS we do get first trip O/S's of all branches They need special supervision and may cause the ship to avoid night boarding until they are totally familiar with such operations. The ship can absorb trainees but it does dilute levels of tasking.
                      Shipboard training is 95% of required on-the-job knowledge base and may support a view that stage training through a series of training vessels is an advantage in all navies.

                      Comment


                      • The idea of getting some 40-50m vessels is a snap idea to cope with two short term issues, (a) the lack of crews, (b) the Brexit fishing mess. So some bright-spark comes up with the idea of a smaller boat (best secondhand so it costs next to nothing) and as it is small it should require only a smaller crew. But is this wise and will we still want/need them in 10-15 years?

                        The still official replacement for the Peacock is stated as being larger with some underwater capabilities, mainly for mines etc. Hopefully the outcome of the Commission will reinforce the need for an expanded underwater capability eg ASW. In which case a modern version of the Danish Flyvefisken class or something like the Saab MCMV80 (Singapore Independence class) with a modular set of systems might be the solution.

                        So while it is understandable that the immediate idea for the current crisis is a 40-50m vessels should there not be some though to what happens when the crewing crisis is over and we need to have the Peacock replacements proper? Should the interim vessels not be a bit smaller, something that later could be passed to a reconstituted Naval Reserve? Would a 30-40m vessels with a crew of 12-16 not be a better choice, something that later the NS could use, naturally with a small full time crew. A bit like the USN Reserve in which full timers are seconded as a core resource to reserve units.

                        Any vessels purchased should not turn into the naval version of the Landsverk Unimog Scout Car! Something bought in a hurry at a bargin price that hung around long past the date when it should have been sent to the Glen.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          The idea of getting some 40-50m vessels is a snap idea to cope with two short term issues, (a) the lack of crews, (b) the Brexit fishing mess. So some bright-spark comes up with the idea of a smaller boat (best secondhand so it costs next to nothing) and as it is small it should require only a smaller crew. But is this wise and will we still want/need them in 10-15 years?

                          The still official replacement for the Peacock is stated as being larger with some underwater capabilities, mainly for mines etc. Hopefully the outcome of the Commission will reinforce the need for an expanded underwater capability eg ASW. In which case a modern version of the Danish Flyvefisken class or something like the Saab MCMV80 (Singapore Independence class) with a modular set of systems might be the solution.

                          So while it is understandable that the immediate idea for the current crisis is a 40-50m vessels should there not be some though to what happens when the crewing crisis is over and we need to have the Peacock replacements proper? Should the interim vessels not be a bit smaller, something that later could be passed to a reconstituted Naval Reserve? Would a 30-40m vessels with a crew of 12-16 not be a better choice, something that later the NS could use, naturally with a small full time crew. A bit like the USN Reserve in which full timers are seconded as a core resource to reserve units.

                          Any vessels purchased should not turn into the naval version of the Landsverk Unimog Scout Car! Something bought in a hurry at a bargin price that hung around long past the date when it should have been sent to the Glen.
                          A reminder that in the mid 70s, when we were waiting on decisions to build new ships, as the reality of EEC membership dawned, the state Leased 1 trawler and purchased one lighthouse tender which served as Patrol vessels until the replacements arrived. They weren't ideal, but they did the job until the proper ships arrived.
                          The crisis is now, the "right" hulls potentially are minimum 2 years away. Who cares whether or not we will need them in 10-15 years, it's easy enough to dispose of ships like this, indeed they could end up replacing the Customs cutters when they reach end of working life(their AO just got bigger, If Brexit goes no deal). There's your NSR craft then, sorted.

                          Comment


                          • If it were seen that the NSR now had a purpose and the means to undertake it it could possibly increase the amount of those enlisting
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                              If it were seen that the NSR now had a purpose and the means to undertake it it could possibly increase the amount of those enlisting
                              It could increase the numbers enlisting but if a lot more was expected from the NSR, I'd imagine incentives would have to come the other way. Return of the Grat would incentivise reservists meeting a required minimum number of days and thus greatly increase the output.

                              Comment


                              • Days onboard ship should be included, current R5 says may require 20hrs a year ????. I wonder has this been considered as part of the redraft. Assign grat to going to sea!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X