Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OPV Replacement

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

  • At what point will the option on the third OPV of the P60 class be looked into? And, what are the chances of further builds in the P60 class with Eithne and the P40's coming up on 30 years before the end of the decade, would it make sense to standardise the fleet as much as possible for a reduced supply chain and greater crew interoperability?
    What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ODIN View Post
      At what point will the option on the third OPV of the P60 class be looked into? And, what are the chances of further builds in the P60 class with Eithne and the P40's coming up on 30 years before the end of the decade, would it make sense to standardise the fleet as much as possible for a reduced supply chain and greater crew interoperability?
      You'd think so wouldn't you?

      That's why it should have been 2 + up to 4 options

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ODIN View Post
        At what point will the option on the third OPV of the P60 class be looked into? And, what are the chances of further builds in the P60 class with Eithne and the P40's coming up on 30 years before the end of the decade, would it make sense to standardise the fleet as much as possible for a reduced supply chain and greater crew interoperability?
        The option can be excercised at any point up to the completion and delivery of P62. Ideally the option will be excercised when P61 is delivered, but it is finance dependant.

        As I have said so many many times before, the intended replacement for eithne would be the EPV. The replacement (directly) for the P40s is a different matter, as the white paper shuld be deciding what type of ship will replace them. Clearly CPVs are no longer as practical as further OPVs, but there is still the question, in my opinion of providing a multi role vessel capable of covering the ETV gap, even though the Coast Guard are not in favour of giving this task to the Naval Service.

        Again, any additional vessels would be decided by the White Paper.

        As for supply chain and crew interoperability, it isn't an issue. Sensor and Comms fit across the fleet is for the most part identical now. Weaponry is becoming so. Normal ship spares are kept on the ship anyway, so the supply chain is short. Larger items are not normally kept in storage. A quick look at tech stores, and how small the building is, will tell you quickly how short the supply chain is. When you consider that the 6 19th century warehouses that dominate the Naval base were intended as storage to keep passing Royal Navy vessels in stores, are now either empty, Idle, derelict or In use as offices. The Items that were once stored in the fire damaged building, when destroyed, removed the need for a storage space of that size.

        Modern best practice, both in civilian industry and in modern military has moved away from large warehouses of parts to a "just in time" practice, where parts, and stores are retained by the supplier until required by the customer. Anyone who ever worked in Dell or similar industries can bear witness to the efficiency of this system.


        Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
          The option can be excercised at any point up to the completion and delivery of P62. Ideally the option will be excercised when P61 is delivered, but it is finance dependant.

          As I have said so many many times before, the intended replacement for eithne would be the EPV. The replacement (directly) for the P40s is a different matter, as the white paper shuld be deciding what type of ship will replace them. Clearly CPVs are no longer as practical as further OPVs, but there is still the question, in my opinion of providing a multi role vessel capable of covering the ETV gap, even though the Coast Guard are not in favour of giving this task to the Naval Service.

          Again, any additional vessels would be decided by the White Paper.

          As for supply chain and crew interoperability, it isn't an issue. Sensor and Comms fit across the fleet is for the most part identical now. Weaponry is becoming so. Normal ship spares are kept on the ship anyway, so the supply chain is short. Larger items are not normally kept in storage. A quick look at tech stores, and how small the building is, will tell you quickly how short the supply chain is. When you consider that the 6 19th century warehouses that dominate the Naval base were intended as storage to keep passing Royal Navy vessels in stores, are now either empty, Idle, derelict or In use as offices. The Items that were once stored in the fire damaged building, when destroyed, removed the need for a storage space of that size.

          Modern best practice, both in civilian industry and in modern military has moved away from large warehouses of parts to a "just in time" practice, where parts, and stores are retained by the supplier until required by the customer. Anyone who ever worked in Dell or similar industries can bear witness to the efficiency of this system.

          I think there are a couple of decisions really:

          - replace Eithne with an EPV or an OPV (if EPV will it be blue/green or ETV capable)
          - replace the CPVs with OPVs (2 for 1 or 1 for 1)
          - in line with the above are we looking at a more capable but smaller (7 vessel) NS

          Eithne/the P50s/the P21s all have different machinery (the movement towards standardised sensors and weapons is excellent). There will still be smaller parts that are kept that are not interchangeable and there are costs associated with that (even supplier management).

          I'd say ERAs etc still have to do training on the specific machinery.

          If we can afford it, there would be big benefits to standardising.

          Comment


          • No dev.

            Just No.


            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

            Comment


            • It will be quite a surprise if we get the third vessel but in saying that they may be able to make the decision in a few years and the economy might be doing better then.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                No dev.

                Just No.
                Which bit?

                Comment


                • Eithne/the P50s/the P21s all have different machinery
                  Irrelevant as its all commercially available off the shelf.You don't need to keep tons of spares just in case. Waste of resources.

                  the only items held in stock would be consumables and they would be ordered as required in sufficent numbers to ensure they are in stock.

                  When things go wrong in the engine room of a ship, its not like a car where you pick something off the shelf and slot it in.More often than not its the ancillaries such as piping to cooling systems etc. that fail and cane be fabricated locally.

                  You can retain back ups for everything, the array is far top big.

                  I
                  'd say ERAs etc still have to do training on the specific machinery.
                  Yes but its with the machinery they work with, its not class room stuff. Systems wise you only have four models to work with, so there is a lot of replication in systems.On The job training is everything, every ships has something different so there is no all defining training tool.

                  replace the CPVs with OPVs (2 for 1 or 1 for 1)
                  Nope, CPVs were bought with a specific purpose in mind they do that job fine, they can get into areas where OPVs are too big. After the loss of the sweepers it was tried to replicate the task with the PVs, didn't work.CPVs have plenty of time left in them .

                  What us going to affect the NS in the future is not the amount of hulls but the cost of fuel. This will dictate ship size and role.

                  Multi role vessel such as an ETV with some of the newer electric drive systems would be ideal.

                  in line with the above are we looking at a more capable but smaller (7 vessel) NS
                  Hulls in the water is always going to be the priority,but they have to be more efficient. We need to diversify types, we can't end up with 7 P50/P60 class as we lose certain capabilities.

                  I reckon the third P60 will be an option within 12-18 months but an ETV might be the preferred option if there was a choice to be made.
                  Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                  Comment



                  • 07-11-13 Appledore Shipyard produces another new ship the 'Samuel Beckett' for the Irish Navy by James Lennie, on Flickr

                    Great photo.


                    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                    Comment


                    • By way of comparison.



                      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                      Comment


                      • It's nice seeing the evolution of the design - must be one of the very best in its class anywhere;

                        Some visible differences on the bridge, looks like there's increased visibility to the side with more windows - and as mentioned before, bridge is slightly raised & the mast is enclosed.

                        Looks like LED lighting on the outside too?

                        Comment


                        • The Ribs are different also, the Single point launch system is a different design. LED lighting is a more energy efficient and low maintenance alternative. Brighter too, when you need it (in port/at anchor).


                          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                          Comment


                          • Another daft question from me, but I've got to ask - looking at older vessels like the Deirdre & Emer, they had a lot of portholes below deck.

                            But Eithne/Ciara/Orla/Roisin/Niamh & the P61 class don't.

                            Why is that?

                            Is it because it improves the strength/resilience of the hull? Makes it easier to ensure the ship is blacked out? Or something else?

                            Does it make any difference to life on board for the crew?

                            Comment


                            • great picture there Goldie Fish. It looks great !

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pym View Post
                                Another daft question from me, but I've got to ask - looking at older vessels like the Deirdre & Emer, they had a lot of portholes below deck.

                                But Eithne/Ciara/Orla/Roisin/Niamh & the P61 class don't.

                                Why is that?

                                Is it because it improves the strength/resilience of the hull? Makes it easier to ensure the ship is blacked out? Or something else?

                                Does it make any difference to life on board for the crew?
                                They "had" a lot of portholes. Successive refits reduced the amount each time. Portholes become another thing to maintain. Ensuring each one is dogged down and deadlighted is another task that someone must do. Seals fail if maintained. I wonder how many seaman had his jocks unexpectedly washed by a freak wave. Another thing to consider is the effect of a sudden influx of salt water on nearby electrical connections.
                                Circular holes in steel plate also reduce its strength.

                                The peacocks don't have them as the crew accommodation does not lend itself to the placing of portholes.


                                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X