CPV Replacement

[hptmurphy]

No government will ever commit to the spending programmes to meet with the ideal .We have been defence blind since the inception of the state and to believe or even offer that we should commit to massive spending programmes on defence while we have massive social issues, infrastructural issues and even basic day to day running of the state issues is such idealism to border on the realms of fantasy .

the fact that we have even upgraded the current fleet during the ongoing fleet replacement is far beyond where even the most cynical would have thought we would be.

Our next unit replacement will be the deciding factor in what direction our naval assets will take and given that has yet to be decided in concept we only live in hope.

We are evolving to a niche general purpose navy. We need to revisit naval aviation and and deployable assets that can participate in real time missions in ongoing international concerns before we can divert funding into specialist roles.

The CPVs will need to be replaced but down grading the role of a CPV to something akin to a Mine warfare vessel will be hugely counter productive.

Replace the CPVs with a real time CPV and look at Mine warfare under a separate heading, replace Eithne with a heli capable vessel that also operates as a command and control centre as Eithne was.

In the past we bought minesweepers because we needed ships not specific mine warfare craft, This is still the case where we need actual hulls and not bracketed into niche roles that we have almost no use for.

[DeV]

About 10 pages ago we decided that vessels can have a counter mine capability without being a MCMV

[hptmurphy]

About 10 pages ago we decided that vessels can have a counter mine capability without being a MCMV

Better let everyone else know as popular opinion seems to be focused on mine warfare craft from the top of this page,

[DeV]

Better let everyone else know as popular opinion seems to be focused on mine warfare craft from the top of this page,

You'll note that I agree with you on post 496 (to a point)

For me a new CPV (with counter mine/IED capability) could be just a notification of the Peacock design with IMHO (not saying it would be possible but a basis of the idea):
- better standard of Accomodiation
- bit of extra Accomodiation for divers etc
- room for min 4+ TEUs and a work area for divers
- better standard of seakeeping
- a crane with the necessary lift capability
- possibly an enhanced sonar system

One of those containers could be a system like Minefox (which could also be used for non-counter mine/IED roles eg as a large ROV for SAR and underwater works). That would be were the major outlay would be (especially if you only retained a basic hull sonar). I would therefore go for a modular multi-role system as possible.

There could be other requirements eg DP, shallow draft etc that I've left out. But the vessel and system must itself be modular (eg the NSDS DCCC is based on/in a TEU), so we buy 2 vessels capable of the level of MCMV decided but (initially at least) only 1 system.

Nor am I suggesting that we buy even 1 unmanned surface craft. We wouldn't have the utilisation to warrant it. If IMERC wanted to go down that road, the NS could help with some testing etc but they would be better off going to the RN, Dutch or Swedes.

You could go all bells and whistles for a under-utilised expensive MCMV which is less than perfect as a CPV. But there is nothing in production that fits the bill to be capable of both roles.

[EUFighter]

For a Peacock replacement a down spec'd Independence class Littoral Mission vessel from Singapore could fit the bill. Naturally we would not get the 3D radar or the MICA missile system!http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/pre...l#.WUf9A2nRbqA

[DeV]

For a Peacock replacement a down spec'd Independence class Littoral Mission vessel from Singapore could fit the bill. Naturally we would not get the 3D radar or the MICA missile system!http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/pre...l#.WUf9A2nRbqA

Depending on the Accomodiation standards and if you could increase the endurance (from 14 to 21 days) - could be a winner

[EUFighter]

Depending on the Accomodiation standards and if you could increase the endurance (from 14 to 21 days) - could be a winner

The standards are alone NATO lines as they want to sell world wide. As for endurance why do we need 21 days for a "Coastal Patrol vessel"?
Given that a 2 week rotation is standard for most offshore industries it might be good for retention? Also given the high degree of automation a crew of just 23 seems just what the doctor ordered. And that would be further reduced as the amount of toys we would get would be a lot less than the RSN.

[DeV]

The standards are alone NATO lines as they want to sell world wide. As for endurance why do we need 21 days for a "Coastal Patrol vessel"?

Is NATO lines similar to Peacocks (from the TV programmes about the RN) they would be - that is not a good thing (especially for the NS)!!

The NS actually led the way worldwide in the standard of Accomodiation available to junior ratings with Deirdre and every new build since, generally you would have been talking 4 to a room (2 X 2 bunks AFAIK) rather 12+ (4+ X 3 bunks) to a room. That's not to say they are/were the Hilton and you also have to take into account that generally it is also their bunk when alongside in the base.

more flexibility, higher operational output and more deployability I assume

Given that a 2 week rotation is standard for most offshore industries it might be good for retention? Also given the high degree of automation a crew of just 23 seems just what the doctor ordered. And that would be further reduced as the amount of toys we would get would be a lot less than the RSN.

Some do 20 on/10 on, 1 mth on/1 mth off, it varies

But does that 23 include boarding teams etc ?!

[EUFighter]

23 is the standard compliment, so would normally include boarding parties, but size varies. However they can add up to 30 mission specific crew

[na grohmiti]

The standards are alone NATO lines as they want to sell world wide. As for endurance why do we need 21 days for a "Coastal Patrol vessel"?
Given that a 2 week rotation is standard for most offshore industries it might be good for retention? Also given the high degree of automation a crew of just 23 seems just what the doctor ordered. And that would be further reduced as the amount of toys we would get would be a lot less than the RSN.

I'll tell you why. Because if you are the first vessel on scene of a major maritime tragedy, having to be replaced just as you are about to make a breakthrough in the search can put the operation back tragically.

[ancientmariner]

23 is the standard compliment, so would normally include boarding parties, but size varies. However they can add up to 30 mission specific crew

When designing and planning warships ,of any type, part of the consideration is crewing levels . On the assumption that a vessel's input can be continuous 24/7 then you must allow enough crew and rolling reliefs for all shipboard positions. Vessels designed for quick intervention are used something like a fire brigade, going to an incident , dealing with it and returning to port for replenishment and re-crewing. Such operations require a multiplicity of bases and scores of vessels such as in the days of Flotilla combat with MTB's and MGB's. We operate by presence at sea, covering large areas, and remaining on task as directed.

[hptmurphy]

23 is the standard compliment, so would normally include boarding parties, but size varies. However they can add up to 30 mission specific crew

Might be for Singapore......try put two boats in the water with full boarding parties similtanously and discover 23 is about half the number you require to operate a vessel the size of a CPV. No amount of automation will remove the requirement for people to carry out the primary functions of Patrol Vessels.

[WhingeNot]

Would incorporating some of the better elements of the above 'ST Marine'/Gowind 1000/Sigma etc., type 'Littoral' vessels, into a re-jigged 'Roisin Class' (i.e. c.1,500t) vessel work?
Or, has this already been suggested long ago?!

[DeV]

CPV would be probably <1000 tonnes

[WhingeNot]

Omitting some of the above deck structure, for a whatever/helicopter deck, similar to above mentioned ships e.g. the Gowind 1000, could bring the weight down closer to 1000t...?