Originally posted by ancientmariner
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CPV Replacement
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostIn regard to OP SOPHIA and enforcement mandates I would imagine the Italian Command are watching individual ship capabilities and tasking them accordingly.
The Italians are interesting as soon they will introduce their PPA, Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura (Multi Purpose Patrol Vessel), a 5000-5500t, €455m (2018 €s), replacing some of their frigates and most of their OPVs. They will have 2 flexible area for different missions, one like the Damen design aft and a second midships for containers. In all very similar to the Crossover design if a bit uglier!
https://www.fincantieri.com/globalas...lvessels_f.pdf
Some pics of the PPA and its two flexible mission areas:
Last edited by EUFighter; 4 August 2018, 10:26.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostSeeing that there are currently only 4 vessels involved in Op Sophia I would expect each ship is being used to the fullest of its capability.
The Italians are interesting as soon they will introduce their PPA, Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura (Multi Purpose Patrol Vessel), a 5000-5500t, €455m (2018 €s), replacing some of their frigates and most of their OPVs. They will have 2 flexible area for different missions, one like the Damen design aft and a second midships for containers. In all very similar to the Crossover design if a bit uglier!
https://www.fincantieri.com/globalas...lvessels_f.pdf
Some pics of the PPA and its two flexible mission areas:
[ATTACH]8560[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8561[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8562[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8563[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8564[/ATTACH]
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostTurns out the Italians have decided that the PPA's are too large and are reducing the later hulls to smaller 3000 ton ships:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-ship-designs/
But cutting a 6000t ship down to a 3000t ship is not as easy as just using "MS Paint"; it would be a totally new ship. If they want something smaller then Fincantieri already have a design in the form of the Doha Corvette that they have sold to Qatar. At 3250t these would be a good fit between the PPA and the COV vessels at 1300-1400t. The latter is the replacement for the current fleet of minehunters which will be replaced 1for1 with multi-purpose vessels which can operate out of smaller harbours!
http://navyrecognition.com/index.php...te-design.htmlLast edited by EUFighter; 5 August 2018, 08:14.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
But cutting a 6000t ship down to a 3000t ship is not as easy as just using "MS Paint"; it would be a totally new ship. If they want something smaller then Fincantieri already have a design in the form of the Doha Corvette that they have sold to Qatar. At 3250t these would be a good fit between the PPA and the COV vessels at 1300-1400t. The latter is the replacement for the current fleet of minehunters which will be replaced 1for1 with multi-purpose vessels which can operate out of smaller harbours!
http://navyrecognition.com/index.php...te-design.html[/QUOTE]
The modern Designers glossy brochures of untested ships leads to ships of unknown costs and capabilities. I despair of unusual ship design that doesn't allow for frequent interaction between ships especially during peace time, such as rescue, firefighting, towing, and boarding. The ultimate is USS Zumwalt with so many stealthy features, that, other than the flight deck, the crew are confined within the hull. Surface design of ships is leading to a weapon response platform similar to a surfaced submarine. Such ships are one trick ponies depending on weapon systems to be relevant , good engines, and long range standoff to stay safe. It is interesting that the replacement for the Burkes will be more conventional although weapons maybe more electronic requiring huge amounts of generation capacity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe modern Designers glossy brochures of untested ships leads to ships of unknown costs and capabilities. I despair of unusual ship design that doesn't allow for frequent interaction between ships especially during peace time, such as rescue, firefighting, towing, and boarding. The ultimate is USS Zumwalt with so many stealthy features, that, other than the flight deck, the crew are confined within the hull. Surface design of ships is leading to a weapon response platform similar to a surfaced submarine. Such ships are one trick ponies depending on weapon systems to be relevant , good engines, and long range standoff to stay safe. It is interesting that the replacement for the Burkes will be more conventional although weapons maybe more electronic requiring huge amounts of generation capacity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostThe Zumwalt class was the extreme designed around the period when the USN didn't really know what type of enemy force they would be facing, and the Marines were calling for NGS, it's "Max Stealth" design was decided on for those reasons and at the time everyone loved "Stealth", the "peacetime" operations you list weren't a priority (afterall the USN would have Frigates to do that scut work). The new build Burkes are designed for an entirely different situation, ABM with a peer competitor in China. Though in reality that design is being pushed to beyond it's max, and there's nothing coming to replace the Tico hulls and the taskforce capabilities they have, and at the same time you've the debacle of the LCS that keeps on giving. It will be interesting to see what the FFG(X) selects for the actual frigate replacement.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostI agree but we must not let techies run away with producing ships of evolutionary concepts geared towards meeting all dimension attacks but failing due to poor reliability . We must stick to defining our needs and build reliable ships to meet those needs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostI take it you meant "revolutionary" as an evolution is a safe way to advance ship design, take the Burke's, Flight I, II, IIa and next Flight III.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostAbsolutely NOT. The modern Defence Industries have taken control of the basic forms of Naval Technology and are producing for customers, depending on what they will buy a range of ships from single use to a stretched version that can do almost everything. Ships need to be designed by the end users and not by the sellers of wares. Most of what is being produced falls short on promise and is in some cases unmanageable as a front line ship. Improving a ship type through it's life is a sensible thing, the rest has the potential to build crock Navies.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostAbsolutely NOT. The modern Defence Industries have taken control of the basic forms of Naval Technology and are producing for customers, depending on what they will buy a range of ships from single use to a stretched version that can do almost everything. Ships need to be designed by the end users and not by the sellers of wares. Most of what is being produced falls short on promise and is in some cases unmanageable as a front line ship. Improving a ship type through it's life is a sensible thing, the rest has the potential to build crock Navies.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostVery, very few end users of anything can design the item they use, do car owners design their cars?, do airlines design their planes? do cruise lines design their ships? What end users need to do is properly define what they want, when they want it and then see what they can afford from the available solutions. Yes, they need to understand what is possible and what not, not to be blinded by glossy presentations or trade shows. Above all the negotiation skills of the buyers have to be vastly improve.
Comment
Comment