Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Its a learning curve. NZ did it first, maybe Denmark before it with Absalon. A major warship with ability to carry freight vehicles troops or a mix of all. NZ took a small ferry design and decided to make it into a small LSL. To say there were teething problems is an understatement.
    The flipside is you get a dedicated lsl that spends 90% of the year tied up. The round table class spent lots of time tied up waiting to transfer troops and equipment from NI.
    Our people have looked at the NZ story and will bring the lessons they learnt back to the design of whatever will replace L.E. Eithne.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
      Its a learning curve. NZ did it first, maybe Denmark before it with Absalon. A major warship with ability to carry freight vehicles troops or a mix of all. NZ took a small ferry design and decided to make it into a small LSL. To say there were teething problems is an understatement.
      The flipside is you get a dedicated lsl that spends 90% of the year tied up. The round table class spent lots of time tied up waiting to transfer troops and equipment from NI.
      Our people have looked at the NZ story and will bring the lessons they learnt back to the design of whatever will replace L.E. Eithne.
      A major warship with multi role capability is the need. Many of our ships ferried for ammo/weapons cargoes over the years. In requested or emergency scenarios we should be able to respond to fleet or external requirements for support or aid. We must also interact with combined fleets in common enterprises and provide for helicopter centered needs or even a deck of refuge.

      Comment


      • The NS will definitely not be following the RNZN model.

        An off the shelf design modified to NS requirements is the most realistic outcome from the tender.

        This vessel must be able to conduct small boat operations at the same rate as the existing OPVs in service.

        I can't see the side launch caley system changing so when the boats will be located will be interesting.

        Maybe an enclosed boat bay with roller doors similar to the proposed Royal Navy Type 26 frigate.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by A/TEL View Post
          The NS will definitely not be following the RNZN model.

          An off the shelf design modified to NS requirements is the most realistic outcome from the tender.

          This vessel must be able to conduct small boat operations at the same rate as the existing OPVs in service.

          I can't see the side launch caley system changing so when the boats will be located will be interesting.

          Maybe an enclosed boat bay with roller doors similar to the proposed Royal Navy Type 26 frigate.
          Grohmiti's comment that it will be a warship that can also contribute to logistic and patrol efforts is about spot on. This ship should be able to carry an agreed amount of stores, equipment and personnel to a disembarkation point and by it's own means put them ashore. They should equally be able to load and secure similar loads for return. The warship bit often gets forgotten so provision of a Defence system is apt and necessary. Some of the ship's craft should be able to land at a distance if necessary and be navigationally equipped to do so AND suitably armed forward.

          Comment


          • On this thread we have discussed the EPV being like the Absalon class (or Damen Crossover), it being a LPD, or an AOR, or a LSV, or a LSL and more variants too numerous to list.

            But no matter what configuration is being discussed there always come back the argument that it need to be able to perform as an OPV. This may be prudent but it would be a major mistake and cement the Naval Service as a purely "fisher protection" force going forward. I know that this eats up the vast majority of the NS operations presently but it the thing that is also holding the NS back from developing towards a proper naval force capable of defending the nation.

            The original tender that was drawn up is now donkey's year old and IMHO no longer valid. I may be seeing some things through rose tinted glasses but it would be more worthwhile waiting for the outcome of the "Commission" to first redefine the roles and needs for the Naval Service. The old tender was drawn up not long after the boys in green got a trip on the HMNLS Rotterdam, so many though "ahh this is a grand yoke, wish we had something like it". But then we were getting rid of the Dauphins so would not look good if we now require a vessel to have helicopters, so we will get around that by saying "capable of operating but no hangar". Ohh and it will be the replacement for the LE Eithne so it should be an OPV also!

            Unless something radically changes the vessel is not likely to see service before 2026 and going on precedent it will serve until maybe 2066! Therefore it is necessary to get it right. The Eithne was years ahead of its time when it entered service and would even if built today represent a leap in capability. Too often the discussion has been on number of hulls when we should be discussing capability. We have over the years lost more and more naval capability moving more towards a one string navy, playing the same note: fishery protection. The cycle needs to be broken and the EPV is the chance to do that: E for expanded capability.

            The last decade was the replacement of the P20 series, this decade the Eithne and the 2 Peacocks will leave and the EPV(s) should be joining the fleet. When we look around we see an increased undersea security issues, from subs, mines to security of the communication and energy networks. We still have the surface threats as well as a resurgent air threat, all of which are not tackled. If the new priority is given to tackling these threats then an EPV could look different than one which has troop/equipment transport as a major driver. The exception would be something like the Absalon class or the Crossover series from Damen. But both are considerably larger than an OPV with the Absalon coming in at 6,600 tonnes fully loaded and cost more than the current budget. But 2 vessels in this class of vessel would give the NS a chance to starting playing something more than just "FP" and be worthy successors to the Eithne and the Peacocks.

            Imagine Naval Service 2030
            2x Crossover-131 class
            4x P60 class
            2x P50 class
            2x 30m CPV (to cover training and inshore work)

            Comment


            • At the end of the day the NS is a multi role state agency and all vessels must be able to deliver multiple roles.... a basic part of that no matter if it is a submarine or a carrier, nationally or internationally, is that it must patrol.

              Comment


              • There was never a tender issued for the EPV/MRV. There was an RFP, which merely invites the industry to present what they would offer, should it go to tender.
                We had similar with the LTAV, if you recall. an RFP was issued, but the concept was quite new then, with basically only the HUMVEE, or versions of it, in use or on the market. It was decided to wait until the market for that type of vehicle had matured before going to the industry again. If we went looking for LTAV tomorrow we would be presented with a selection of very different vehicles to what we ended up with.

                Same for the EPV/MRV. When the RFP was issued, NZ were in the process of selecting the IoM ferry, but other builders had proposed designs also. Blohm & Voss being the most notable, with its variation on the MEKO 200 design, which was well received here and put forward initially as what the NS had in mind. But the Recession happened, and we did well to fund our new OPV in the circumstances, given that the MRV at the time was expected to cost in the region of double the price of an OPV. (about €180m)
                Time has moved on, B&V are no longer the entity they were, and their Meko 200 design has passed into history also. The NS also has moved on, the logic of having a ship just a few metres larger than an OPV, for double the price no longer seems like an attractive option, (MEKO200 MRV was just 118m, the new OPVs are 90m) and particularly difficult to justify to the taxpayer.
                The only definite facts at present are the following.
                The White Paper provides for the replacement of the current Naval Service flagship LÉ Eithne with a multi role vessel (MRV) which will be enabled for helicopter operations and will also have a freight carrying capacity. It is the intention to hold a public tender competition in due course to cover the supply of the MRV subject to the availability of funding within the overall Defence capital funding envelope. The cost of the MRV will only be known once the tender competition is concluded.
                The Width of the basin entrance isn't really a limiting factor either, if proposals go ahead to develop a second jetty outside the basin to the North. The Basin as it stands is quite confined, and was designed at a time when your average Battleship (pre-Dreadnought) was only 99m LOA. Today your average "small warship" comes in at similar dimensions.
                You Don't buy a car to fit your garage, you buy it to suit your needs. If it doesn't fit in the garage, you park it outside. You definitely don't buy your car to fit into the confines of your victorian built stable.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  There was never a tender issued for the EPV/MRV. There was an RFP, which merely invites the industry to present what they would offer, should it go to tender.
                  We had similar with the LTAV, if you recall. an RFP was issued, but the concept was quite new then, with basically only the HUMVEE, or versions of it, in use or on the market. It was decided to wait until the market for that type of vehicle had matured before going to the industry again. If we went looking for LTAV tomorrow we would be presented with a selection of very different vehicles to what we ended up with.

                  Same for the EPV/MRV. When the RFP was issued, NZ were in the process of selecting the IoM ferry, but other builders had proposed designs also. Blohm & Voss being the most notable, with its variation on the MEKO 200 design, which was well received here and put forward initially as what the NS had in mind. But the Recession happened, and we did well to fund our new OPV in the circumstances, given that the MRV at the time was expected to cost in the region of double the price of an OPV. (about €180m)
                  Time has moved on, B&V are no longer the entity they were, and their Meko 200 design has passed into history also. The NS also has moved on, the logic of having a ship just a few metres larger than an OPV, for double the price no longer seems like an attractive option, (MEKO200 MRV was just 118m, the new OPVs are 90m) and particularly difficult to justify to the taxpayer.
                  The only definite facts at present are the following.

                  The Width of the basin entrance isn't really a limiting factor either, if proposals go ahead to develop a second jetty outside the basin to the North. The Basin as it stands is quite confined, and was designed at a time when your average Battleship (pre-Dreadnought) was only 99m LOA. Today your average "small warship" comes in at similar dimensions.
                  You Don't buy a car to fit your garage, you buy it to suit your needs. If it doesn't fit in the garage, you park it outside. You definitely don't buy your car to fit into the confines of your victorian built stable.
                  All relevant to where we need to go. The overall result must be an independent vessel that can unassisted, move it's logistic packages to where they are needed and support the ongoing operation to shore. She should also be able to take return cargoes and provide assistance to ships in support or in need.

                  Comment


                  • Although not directly related to our requirements the USN is operating Mark-VI patrol boats (25.4m) out of the well deck of the USS Comstock (LSD 45). A tradition that goes back to their first LSD the USS Ashland (LSD-1) which operated PT-boats during WW2. Just goes to show what a flexible design can achieve.

                    https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-na...ppine-sea.html

                    Comment


                    • interesting flexibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qj3uHHA6Kg

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                        A bit of a gamechanger in the MRV/EPV world today.
                        The Template of this particular type, the ship that opened up the concept, almost 15 years ago, was just re-designated a Frigate in Danish Service.
                        Well now there is a formal statement from the Danish MoD, the Absalon class are now transformed from Support Ships to ASW frigates.
                        https://forsvaret.dk/da/nyheder/2020...nye-fregatter/

                        Comment


                        • At least now they'll know what to put in the space between the Hangar block and the C3 Block.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            Well now there is a formal statement from the Danish MoD, the Absalon class are now transformed from Support Ships to ASW frigates.
                            https://forsvaret.dk/da/nyheder/2020...nye-fregatter/
                            Where does it say ASW?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                              Where does it say ASW?
                              In the article. Click the box to read the full piece. You won't even need to translate it
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                                Where does it say ASW?
                                Here is a translated text:
                                The Navy's two support ships are being reclassified as frigates. The "new" frigates are being equipped and trained to be even better at finding and fighting submarines, and the new designation as frigates makes it easier to cooperate with NATO partners.

                                The Navy's warships Esbern Snare and Absalon of the Absalon class have so far been called "support ships", but are now being reclassified to the more appropriate "ASW frigates". ASW stands for Anti-Submarine Warfare, and the ships will be equipped with anti-submarine equipment in the form of an advanced towed sonar that can detect submarines at a long range.

                                “When we have finished equipping the Absalon class as ASW frigates, Denmark will move up in a new league among the nations that have the capability to combat submarines. It is important that we can thus better provide NATO with the required capacity in that area. With the current geopolitical situation and the world's security situation, it is crucial that Denmark has a capable anti-submarine capacity,” says Rear Admiral Torben Mikkelsen, head of the Navy Command.

                                Operational run-up in 2026

                                The equipment of the ASW frigates is an offshoot of the latest defense agreement, and they are expected to be fully equipped in 2026. The time until then will be used to purchase the necessary sonar and computer equipment as well as adapt, test and certify the ships. In addition, the anti-submarine equipment must be integrated with the ship's other computer systems and weapon systems. In addition, crew members must be trained who can use the new equipment. Education will i.a. take place in a simulator so that the crew can be ready to operate the new equipment as soon as it is installed.

                                However, the ships already have a hull-mounted sonar that can detect submarines at a shorter distance, and the ship can defend itself against submarines. The new towing sonar makes it possible to detect submarines at a much greater distance. In addition to the new equipment, the ships' new Seahawk helicopters will be equipped with so-called dip sonar, sonar buoys and anti-submarine torpedoes. Together, this means that the new ASW frigates can monitor a much larger sea area and protect several ships in, for example, a naval force.

                                NATO better understands the term

                                The term "flexible support ship" has often caused confusion among NATO partners. This is partly because "support ship" can be translated to the English "supplyship", even though the Abslon class has always had size, capacity and weapons as frigates. Operating ASW frigates is well known in NATO and the new identity will make it easier for NATO partners to understand.

                                The reclassification of both ships will take place on Monday 19 October at a ceremony at Fleet Station Frederikshavn. The ships retain their names, but change the pennant number from L16 and L17, to F341 and F342.

                                When is a warship described as a frigate?

                                There is no fixed definition of this, but it is often said that ships with a tonnage between 3,000-6,000 tons and with a specific weapon equipment are frigates. The Danish ASW frigates of the Absalon class have a tonnage of 6,300 tons, and they are 137 meters long and 19.5 meters wide. They have, among other things, Harpoon missiles, Sea Sparrow missiles and anti-submarine torpedoes on board.

                                In addition, the ships can each operate two Sea Hawk helicopters.

                                Denmark already has three air defense frigates of the Iver Huitfeldt class: Iver Huitfeldt, Peter Willemoes and Niels Juel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X