Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Irish naval service useages < now and future

    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    Origin > Foreign Naval Visits

    LÉ James Joyce exercised yesterday with the Standing Nato Mine Counter Measures Group off the East Coast.

    Irish Naval Service Photos

    NATO MCG1 Photos

    Any deductions to be drawn from this do you think?

    Has just occurred to me that the P60s enjoy the best organic diving support facilities in the NS, and surely also in the flotilla on exercise yesterday.
    The Irish Navy would be remiss NOT to check out it's communicability and interoperability with Navies passing through it's waters . What happened is described as a PASSEX which will confirm, or otherwise, if you have the level of communications to work with other ships, say in maritime disasters and even in conflicts where speedy communications can confirm your status friend or foe or neutral .

    The resurrection of complex ship requirements, again vis-a-vis CPV's and/or other vessels should be left to experienced sailors. Brochure hunting in the ether leads to confusion and exposure of technical deserts in the maritime fields of the proposers. The role is to DEFEND, PROTECT, SUPPORT.Our duty as a Navy is to describe how to achieve that in the circumstances where we continue to be neutral. It means we must defend our selves in all defence realms AIR, SURFACE,and SUB-SURFACE. If we were part of an alliance , we could in that case be more selective, as to our possible roles. Remember in an alliance it is possible to have a single major role.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    Thanks very much for that Medsailor, I'll take a little time to try to digest that, even on a quick skim it all looks pretty gruesome.

    Do you think there are any useful observations to be drawn from P61's exercise with NATO MCG1 this week?

    Would the P60's dive support facilities, in particular, add any appreciable additional capability to the formation?

    Originally posted by Medsailor View Post
    Saw this one after my later post appeared, not sure why...
    Having been a lurker for some time, and having only started posting recently, all my posts are automatically held for review by the mods.
    I'm advised that, in time, posts will become immediately visible and I'll be able to post thanks and likes in the customary manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medsailor
    replied
    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    I really like the sound of that, na grohmití, particularly as the RN's C3 project currently looks like this Venator 110. That's a proper scrappy little frigate!

    Far be it from me to enter into theological disputes found elsewhere regarding the true meaning of the recent Defence White Paper, but the gist I take from it, and the recent missive on the possibility of a 9 ship Navy is that we're looking at 1 Eithne replacement, 2 Peacock replacements, and perhaps 1 (for-the-time-being undefined) other.

    My belief is, and please forgive me if I'm stumbling in the dark here, that the 2 Peacock replacement Coastal Patrol Vessels/Mine Counter-Measures Vessels will be spending 75% or more of their time doing inshore fisheries protection. I understand that draught in the 3m range is a big plus when you're doing that kind of work, so my eye has been drawn to this unlovely, but functional, beast.

    [ATTACH]8208[/ATTACH]

    I'm no naval architect but I believe a modest stretch could produce two very high standard direct replacements for LÉ Orla & Ciara. They could be enabled for dual Rhib operation with all modern facilities, accommodation for 21 day endurance, and lest we forget; should we actually ever need it, a top-end mine countermeasures capability.

    All that said, I'm a huge fan of the Venator for the NS, but if and when it will ever happen is, as I understand it, all up in the air. Undoubtedly there would be the prospect of getting two of them at a relatively competitive price tacked onto the end of a RN order for six or eight. But there are just so many unknowns and variables at work here, my understanding of recent decisions in the UK MoD is that if the Venator/Type 31 Patrol Frigate does see the light of day, it will not be until the 2030s. That could put them in the running to replace the P50s and even, invoking Murphy's special law of warship production scheduling, the P60s.

    Irish/Dutch/British exercise 2050
    Something for our friends in the Silent Service. SSK Submarine Corvette, Patrol Frigates, and Environmental Protection Vessel are ours!

    If we're looking for 2019-ish replacements for Eithne and the Peacocks featuring enhanced sea-keeping abilities, functionality, endurance and modern accommodation for the North Atlantic winter, we could always go for exactly that. Róisín++ HPV. It's what we know, it's the safe bet, and in any kind of sensible world, assumptions just given, we'd get four of them for our 9 ship Navy without much resistance at all.

    The remaining issue then would be, are the P50s suitable for inshore fisheries protection and MCM work? I'm inclined to think that the P60s would be better suited to the latter. It's all about the deck-space[?]. But apart from the addition of the necessary mine hunting equipment; would major work be needed to mitigate the effects of things that are prone, on occasion, to go boom?

    I'm particularly keen to hear opinions on to the mine countermeasures issue specifically. Now that it's been enshrined in a white paper following extensive consultation with our gallant friends in Europe; do we now actually have to get [more] suitable Mine Counter-Measures/Coastal Patrol Vessels, or is the Samuel Beckett destined to become the most glamorous minesweeper ever to see the light of God's creation?

    How the man himself would get a kick out of that!

    Bottom line, are the P50s/P60s suitable for this type of work? From a technical/engineering/safety standpoint? Or must we embrace the horror?

    [ATTACH]8208[/ATTACH]
    Saw this one after my later post appeared, not sure why.

    Just the one answer, making a vessel capable of going into harms way in terms of mines is very, very, very (excuse the emphasis) expensive and complicated, even more so if it is a retrofit. All critical equipment (and that includes the crew, engines, diesels and even the canners/heads) needs to be shock-mounted to survive the accelerations involved, especially with influence mines (peaking at accelerations of over 8000m/s2 as per attached study). I have had the dubious honour of watching US DoD films of tests conducted post-war which included the use of corpses as crash-test dummies weren't around in those days. The slow motion pictures were horrific and mainly consisted of the bone structure exiting the soft tissue at a fair rate of knots. So, as robust and fine ships as the P50s and P60s are, you don't want to be going into mine country with them.
    So, either go whole hog and be prepared to spend at least 2-3 times what was spent on each P60 on each full-blown MCMV or stick to basic offboard systems and accept that the main role of the vessel is patrol.

    Last edited by Medsailor; 5 April 2016, 21:14.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    LÉ James Joyce in exercise with NATO MCMVs

    Origin > Foreign Naval Visits

    LÉ James Joyce exercised yesterday with the Standing Nato Mine Counter Measures Group off the East Coast.

    Irish Naval Service Photos

    NATO MCG1 Photos

    Any deductions to be drawn from this do you think?

    Has just occurred to me that the P60s enjoy the best organic diving support facilities in the NS, and surely also in the flotilla on exercise yesterday.

    Leave a comment:


  • Medsailor
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
    Not at all. That type of ship would be of no use where we would intend using it.
    This idea is closer to our thinking I would be willing to suggest.

    http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...asure-vessels/
    It is impossible to achieve the same level of MCM capability with a bolt-on system as that which can be achieved with a dedicated MCM hull. However, once it has been decided that a limited (small-scale route survey, identification and neutralisation of ordnance in harbour approaches, location and examination of objects in relatively shallow depths, say 100-150 metres) capability is what is required, then achieving it is relatively host-platform agnostic. There have been notable fails in this approach, the LCS for instance, but leveraging commercial ROV technology (both surface and sub-surface), single-use disposal vehicles, COTS electronics and containerised diver support modules can achieve a reasonable level of capability. Sustained MCM operations in a high risk environment require a more robust approach with dedicated MCMVs and a host of other assets to support and protect both them and the operational gains they achieve.

    So when all is said and done, I would say focus on building a CPV that is fit for and focused on the CPV roles envisaged and incorporate sufficient flexibility to allow the elements required for limited MCM activities to be plugged in as and when necessary. Otherwise risk ending up with a solution that is neither fish nor fowl.

    Most importantly, manage expectations. Don't let anyone think for a moment that a bolt-on system can provide the full spectrum of capabilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    I really like the sound of that, na grohmití, particularly as the RN's C3 project currently looks like this Venator 110. That's a proper scrappy little frigate!

    Far be it from me to enter into theological disputes found elsewhere regarding the true meaning of the recent Defence White Paper, but the gist I take from it, and the recent missive on the possibility of a 9 ship Navy is that we're looking at 1 Eithne replacement, 2 Peacock replacements, and perhaps 1 (for-the-time-being undefined) other.

    My belief is, and please forgive me if I'm stumbling in the dark here, that the 2 Peacock replacement Coastal Patrol Vessels/Mine Counter-Measures Vessels will be spending 75% or more of their time doing inshore fisheries protection. I understand that draught in the 3m range is a big plus when you're doing that kind of work, so my eye has been drawn to this unlovely, but functional, beast.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Kormoran 2 Model.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	66.2 KB
ID:	698065

    I'm no naval architect but I believe a modest stretch could produce two very high standard direct replacements for LÉ Orla & Ciara. They could be enabled for dual Rhib operation with all modern facilities, accommodation for 21 day endurance, and lest we forget; should we actually ever need it, a top-end mine countermeasures capability.

    All that said, I'm a huge fan of the Venator for the NS, but if and when it will ever happen is, as I understand it, all up in the air. Undoubtedly there would be the prospect of getting two of them at a relatively competitive price tacked onto the end of a RN order for six or eight. But there are just so many unknowns and variables at work here, my understanding of recent decisions in the UK MoD is that if the Venator/Type 31 Patrol Frigate does see the light of day, it will not be until the 2030s. That could put them in the running to replace the P50s and even, invoking Murphy's special law of warship production scheduling, the P60s.

    Irish/Dutch/British exercise 2050
    Something for our friends in the Silent Service. SSK Submarine Corvette, Patrol Frigates, and Environmental Protection Vessel are ours!

    If we're looking for 2019-ish replacements for Eithne and the Peacocks featuring enhanced sea-keeping abilities, functionality, endurance and modern accommodation for the North Atlantic winter, we could always go for exactly that. Róisín++ HPV. It's what we know, it's the safe bet, and in any kind of sensible world, assumptions just given, we'd get four of them for our 9 ship Navy without much resistance at all.

    The remaining issue then would be, are the P50s suitable for inshore fisheries protection and MCM work? I'm inclined to think that the P60s would be better suited to the latter. It's all about the deck-space[?]. But apart from the addition of the necessary mine hunting equipment; would major work be needed to mitigate the effects of things that are prone, on occasion, to go boom?

    I'm particularly keen to hear opinions on to the mine countermeasures issue specifically. Now that it's been enshrined in a white paper following extensive consultation with our gallant friends in Europe; do we now actually have to get [more] suitable Mine Counter-Measures/Coastal Patrol Vessels, or is the Samuel Beckett destined to become the most glamorous minesweeper ever to see the light of God's creation?

    How the man himself would get a kick out of that!

    Bottom line, are the P50s/P60s suitable for this type of work? From a technical/engineering/safety standpoint? Or must we embrace the horror?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Kormoran 2 Model.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	66.2 KB
ID:	698065

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Not at all. That type of ship would be of no use where we would intend using it.
    This idea is closer to our thinking I would be willing to suggest.

    As Sandown and Hunt mine hunting vessels approach their retirement, the UK Royal Navy has been exploring alternatives. Liam Stoker explores the possible future of a combined mine-countermeasure, hydrographic and patrol vessel, taking inspiration from France’s SLaMF programme.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    Originally posted by Medsailor View Post
    This will tell you something about seakeeping limitations.
    [ATTACH]8205[/ATTACH]
    In general, given that the capabilities expected from your CPVs are roughly analogous to what many expect from OPVs, especially in terms of seakeeping, then an SES solution appears overly complicated and has a definite upper limit for sea conditions that occurs when the seaway is high enough to impact the centre body of the vessel. What makes them so good for MCMVs is their (relatively) high transit speed compared to displacement hulls, low noise and pressure signature, low susceptibility to shock and the relatively large deck area for a given size/tonnage.
    Thanks to Medsailor for the above. I guess we're looking at something more like the new Polish Kormoran 2 class minehunters.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	bef9f4b92ef826e3594fc10eac998847.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	82.6 KB
ID:	698064

    http://www.janes.com/article/54671/p...warfare-vessel

    Leave a comment:


  • The Usual Suspect
    replied
    Originally from > Foreign Naval Visits

    Can those with better knowledge and experience than mine comment on the suitability of a HNoMS Otra type vessel for inshore fisheries protection?

    We know that Otra and her Alta class sisters are competent mine warfare vessels, particularly since their Minesniper III upgrade.

    Could this design be the basis for a Peacock class CPV replacement? Speed, stability and shallow draught would appear to be very attractive features.

    Undoubtedly there would need to be redesign to facilitate dual Rhib operation and associated facilities, modern accommodation for 21 day endurance.

    Basic Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta-class_minesweeper

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    The counter-mine/-IED part of the replacement programme have probably covered what's in the link below, but if not, here's something to enjoy over your coffee break

    * http://www.naval-technology.com/feat...eeded-4809232/

    In a nutshell, the head of the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group thinks a robust, flexible, deployable MCM capability will be required into the future. Now he would say that, wouldn't he...

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    ASW Training Naval Service

    Originally posted by pym View Post
    Ancientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?

    I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
    Yes. When I joined in 1961 our ASW equipment and weapons were fully operational. We still had a remaining cohort either from the RN and officers and ratings trained in the UK on ASW. The Dome was kept on deck and had its own davit and coupling system. There was also a training simulator, ashore, which gave operators the audio inputs from a tracked target to the point of "Instant echoes" and DC launch. We never did live training with a designated submarine but on occasion entertained the odd whale off the West Coast. Both officers and ratings could be trained in their various roles.
    In the last few years of their lives the Corvettes were demilitarised partially in response to an incident on Cliona, and to signify the need for new vessels.
    I firmly believe what we need now in Naval Tonnage, must be left in the hands of the Navy and the wisdom of the Government WP.
    In the post war period we were up to speed with the then technologies but got left behind when we started building ships to approved specifications which by and large frowned on firepower.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTU
    replied
    Just out of curiosity why are we discussing ASW for the CPV replacement?
    The only reason I suggested the "adapted Baltic Tugs" was because If I am not mistaken there was a report by the Deptartment for Transport identifying a need for a ETV, now maybe they are not ideal for the navy, but is building a new ship based on the specification of a ship that was originally designed to patrol Hong Kong really ideal either?

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    I fear that the budget for an ASW capability would more than equal the entire defence budget, including pensions
    Thank you !

    but having seen the bill for a T26 ASW frigate I'm afraid I take the view that whoever decided to mention an ASW capability in the defence
    white paper doesn't understand the costs involved...
    Again thank you

    the voice of reason

    Leave a comment:


  • ropebag
    replied
    Originally posted by pym View Post
    Ancientmariner, was the submarine detection equipment (ASDIC?) kept serviceable on the Corvettes and did anti sub training take place?

    I do feel that given the choice, any government would prefer to ignore subs as the expense and use of the detection capability would probably lead to some very awkward questions.
    I fear that the budget for an ASW capability would more than equal the entire defence budget, including pensions...

    That's not say that the state should not have at least an idea of what goes on in its waters, and the capability to impose its will in those waters, but having seen the bill for a T26 ASW frigate I'm afraid I take the view that whoever decided to mention an ASW capability in the defence
    white paper doesn't understand the costs involved...

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Whatever ships we have or get, then they MUST be defendable, and carry out ANY task in their area of operations.
    As history has proven defending a ship is only possible when you have identified the threat. You do not send ships into an AO where they cannot meet defined threats.

    Again we are dealing with Fishery Protection vessels with some minor warfare capability.

    Modern day frigates are a quantum leap from where the NS will be for the next 15 years at least. Every Navy in the world deploying singular units deploys them in tandem with other navies who can support them or indeed the vessels are self supporting.

    We could go down the road of buying off the shelf products armed to the teeth both offensively and defensively but thy are not suitable for deployment in our waters.

    Buy Absalon by all means, but don't expect to get another hull replacement for twenty years.

    Buy plenty of OPVs and deploy them alongside people capable of offering the support we require in certain threat areas, but don't put all the eggs in one basket and come crying when the arse falls out of the basket.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X