Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    but expected to survive up to sea state 8.
    The link I posted said SS5

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    No Navy can withstand transient political meddling. The IPV's were doomed to failure when their use became mostly civilianised, working for Police, Coast Guard, Fisheries. There was a question of restrictions in boat deployments at sea state 4, but expected to survive up to sea state 8. What happens if you get caught out in the Southern Ocean Storms . It might indeed be better in an inland sea but that is a question of investigation and trial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boreas
    replied
    Medsailor, would one of the the NZ ships suit the needs of the AFM?

    Looking at the specs they seem similar in size, speed, displacement, etc. to the P61.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    It might be a bit of a stretch from the CPV topic I admit, but I see that New Zealand has issues with their IPV's with suggestions that they will be sold off (the Government is claiming performance issues, some claiming it's crewing issues) and replaced with an OPV:


    Honestly I never really understood the logic of the IPV's for their position.
    To refer to that article, how could 200 miles offshore be referred to as Inshore (as in IPV)?

    Interesting:

    Leave a comment:


  • Medsailor
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    They were going with them until the project went pear shaped, they cancelled it and went with the Seahawks, leaving them with the company that have now managed to get New Zealand to buy them.
    It didn't go pear shaped, the Australian Navy started laying out additional performance requirements that the Seasprite could never have fulfilled being, after all, a 50-year old design. For a navy with a rather simpler set of operational demands, as is the RNZN, they are fine helicopters. If they suffer from anything, it is the fact that they were designed and built for one purpose, that of an embarked multirole tactical helo and they excel at this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Cost of upgrade exceeded the value. Australians have Seahawk so why would they want to back pedal to a 50 year old design!
    They were going with them until the project went pear shaped, they cancelled it and went with the Seahawks, leaving them with the company that have now managed to get New Zealand to buy them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by sofa View Post
    I think the Australians have given up on trying to get those Seasprites operational, if memoiry serves me right. or 'am I thinking of something else.?
    yeah they cancelled their order a few years back, and the company has been stuck with them, so New Zealand might have got a "bargain" compared to the costs of going to the Seahawk or equivalent. I've said it before here but I really do wonder when it comes time for replacing some of their major capital equipment (the Frigates, the C 130's, the P-3's) just what they are going to decide?

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Originally posted by sofa View Post
    I think the Australians have given up on trying to get those Seasprites operational, if memoiry serves me right. or 'am I thinking of something else.?
    Cost of upgrade exceeded the value. Australians have Seahawk so why would they want to back pedal to a 50 year old design!

    Leave a comment:


  • sofa
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Here's a rebuttal from the NZ Labour Spokesman blaming the crew issues:


    In relation to the Seasprites, they are actually getting new old ones, decommissioning their 5 and replacing them with 8 I models from the cancelled Australian order
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ters/83020886/
    I think the Australians have given up on trying to get those Seasprites operational, if memoiry serves me right. or 'am I thinking of something else.?
    Last edited by sofa; 16 April 2016, 00:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Ouch! Their latest batch of ships all round for the past 10 years have been an an un precedented disaster, Starting with a Frigate force with very limited capabilities, a car ferry with a flight deck that loses it boats and rolls on wet grass and OPVs that were less than optimal.

    Who is at fault, Navy , Politicians or designers?

    And don't forget buying reconditioned anti submarine helicopters that the USN moved on from 20 years ago.
    Here's a rebuttal from the NZ Labour Spokesman blaming the crew issues:


    Staff shortages - not lack of need - is why the Navy’s inshore patrol vessels are not being put to sea, Labour’s Defence spokesperson Phil Goff says.

    "Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee is deliberately misleading New Zealand in suggesting otherwise. Half of the new fleet has languished at port and have not gone to sea for years. ...

    "Gerry Brownlee knows these facts and is therefore being dishonest in saying that the patrol vessels are not being used because they are not needed. ...

    "Gerry Brownlee is arrogant and out-of-touch. It’s time the Government put in charge of Defence a minister who shows some interest in the portfolio and a commitment to our armed forces being able to carry out the roles the country needs it to," Phil Goff says.
    In relation to the Seasprites, they are actually getting new old ones, decommissioning their 5 and replacing them with 8 I models from the cancelled Australian order

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    It might be a bit of a stretch from the CPV topic I admit, but I see that New Zealand has issues with their IPV's with suggestions that they will be sold off (the Government is claiming performance issues, some claiming it's crewing issues) and replaced with an OPV:


    Honestly I never really understood the logic of the IPV's for their position.
    Ouch! Their latest batch of ships all round for the past 10 years have been an an un precedented disaster, Starting with a Frigate force with very limited capabilities, a car ferry with a flight deck that loses it boats and rolls on wet grass and OPVs that were less than optimal.

    Who is at fault, Navy , Politicians or designers?

    And don't forget buying reconditioned anti submarine helicopters that the USN moved on from 20 years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    It might be a bit of a stretch from the CPV topic I admit, but I see that New Zealand has issues with their IPV's with suggestions that they will be sold off (the Government is claiming performance issues, some claiming it's crewing issues) and replaced with an OPV:


    Honestly I never really understood the logic of the IPV's for their position.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    I looked through my Jane's Fighting Ships 1986/87 yesterday, and there on page 234 in its discussion of the replacement of the Tons it stated that they were looking at acquiring 2 Alkmaar class Mine hunters from the Dutch.

    Fast fowards 30 years and all those "Tripartite" minehunters needing replacement there might be a common european design that the NS might seek to acquire.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Sure anti-virus software is considered dual use

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by sofa View Post
    Nobody mention Pentium chips
    Ah the PANA types have been waffling about "dual use" exports for years but haven't got much traction on it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X