Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    You did read it is Belgian/Dutch vessels, there lead company is French but France is not buying any.
    Also 81.8m long and a beam of 17m! Displacement 2800t and a max speed of 15,3kts
    The beam of the vessel at 17m is obviously to minimise heel when the heavy UUV is being launched. Perhaps it should be stern launched. It is obvious this whole project is not being done by those that operate ships professionally. Environmentally the sea is as you find it and design must be flexible to meet average operational requirements of MCM but certainly NOT just flat calm!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      The beam of the vessel at 17m is obviously to minimise heel when the heavy UUV is being launched. Perhaps it should be stern launched. It is obvious this whole project is not being done by those that operate ships professionally. Environmentally the sea is as you find it and design must be flexible to meet average operational requirements of MCM but certainly NOT just flat calm!
      I tend to agree, the USV they are proposing is almost 14t and looking at the cradle/davit system they are using this too must be around the same if not more. It massive sides structure will make great sails and provide a nice juicy target for any hostile ASM that might head their way.

      Comment


      • I'd be inclined to suggest that the Belgian/Dutch priority is to replace the tripartite mcmv in their current role, rather than anything deployable.
        Their current daily task is clearing the channel area of historic ordnance. There are still many tonnes of dud artillery shells, dumped bomber payloads and sea mines from both WW1 and 2 on the Belgian and dutch seabed. Every so often a fishing net or anchor disturbs them. This has the potential to unintentionally close all of Europe's busiest ports.
        So maybe the ships are just fine for their local waters?
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • It also looks very top heavy and is relatively flat bottomed.

          The translation is hard to read in places but it reads as if it will only operate in role (ie the USVs can only be launched) up to SS4

          Would a rear ramp launching system be better suited to higher sea states?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            I'd be inclined to suggest that the Belgian/Dutch priority is to replace the tripartite mcmv in their current role, rather than anything deployable.
            Their current daily task is clearing the channel area of historic ordnance. There are still many tonnes of dud artillery shells, dumped bomber payloads and sea mines from both WW1 and 2 on the Belgian and dutch seabed. Every so often a fishing net or anchor disturbs them. This has the potential to unintentionally close all of Europe's busiest ports.
            So maybe the ships are just fine for their local waters?
            There is a hell of a lot of historic ordnance around our shores, especially as a nice neighbour has used the Irish Sea as a dumping ground, not to mention sunken ships still loaded with munitions.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              It also looks very top heavy and is relatively flat bottomed.

              The translation is hard to read in places but it reads as if it will only operate in role (ie the USVs can only be launched) up to SS4

              Would a rear ramp launching system be better suited to higher sea states?
              The ramps on the USCG cutters are certified for SS5.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                There is a hell of a lot of historic ordnance around our shores, especially as a nice neighbour has used the Irish Sea as a dumping ground, not to mention sunken ships still loaded with munitions.
                Most of the dumped stuff around our deeper waters is exactly that. Dumped. However the stuff on the BENE coast has been placed or dropped intentionally, and then lost.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                  There is a hell of a lot of historic ordnance around our shores, especially as a nice neighbour has used the Irish Sea as a dumping ground, not to mention sunken ships still loaded with munitions.
                  Not just our neighbour. Over many years , just after the Corvette and dated heavy weapons period, we loaded Ordnance both in Dublin and Cork to dump in designated areas. Our Irish sea dump was the Beaufort Dyke lying between Belfast Lough and Scotland . It has more Ordnance in it's depths than most Armies. We dumped boxed munitions off the SW coast, off the 100 fathom line. It was tricky as the boxes didn't fill with water quick enough and the remainder had to be augured with bigger holes.

                  Comment


                  • Depends on size and weight of the UUV. Some are typically 375mm in diameter and maybe up to 4.5m long, to be launched without damaging steering or propulsion arrangments of the Unit. Stern launching can be designed for one man operation using an A Frame that rotates out over the stern and has the vehicle tethered by the nose prior to release. Some UUV's can be launched and recovered using the ship's RHIB. The US has developed systems that suit their requirements. Just don't buy over engineered systems.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      Depends on size and weight of the UUV. Some are typically 375mm in diameter and maybe up to 4.5m long, to be launched without damaging steering or propulsion arrangments of the Unit. Stern launching can be designed for one man operation using an A Frame that rotates out over the stern and has the vehicle tethered by the nose prior to release. Some UUV's can be launched and recovered using the ship's RHIB. The US has developed systems that suit their requirements. Just don't buy over engineered systems.
                      UUVs are generally much smaller and lighter than USVs

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        UUVs are generally much smaller and lighter than USVs
                        The USN have a program to use 7.5t USV's for MCM. The vessels are also self refitable, to be crewed ,and have minimal weather limitations.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          The USN have a program to use 7.5t USV's for MCM. The vessels are also self refitable, to be crewed ,and have minimal weather limitations.
                          I would caution that in MCM there has been choices made that proved beyond the capability of the design both at manned and unmanned levels. It is probably the reason that some USV's were also capable of being manned. The only units that have considerable time in various uses are the REMUS range of remotes. We must not be influenced unduly by the positive brochures.

                          Comment


                          • Yet another indication of the need to be able to protect our undersea territory. An interesting read.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=na grohmiti;474890]Yet another indication of the need to be able to protect our undersea territory. An interesting read.

                              Comment


                              • From OPV replacement thread

                                Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                Now that the program for OPV's is now complete and our operationally viable fleet is deployable subject to manpower and ongoing refits of the two older vessels, it is time to contract out the replacement of P31, P41, and P42. In replacing the latter three, which includes our Flagship , the decision on type, range, and scope must be to fill National, obligatory , and endemic threat needs as outlined in recent White Papers. The Department of Defence must confine itself to Finance and Administrative matters and not make decisions that will impact future use of the vessels. The proposed MRV must have an expansive flight deck, with shipboard crane arms housed clear of Fl. Deck. so that most Helicopters that operate in the Marine environment can land on for fuel or respite.
                                The MCM area is difficult in that the expert navies , Belgium and Netherlands, are in transition building a new system based on a mother ship (2000t +) and drones both for finding and Mine destruction. The RN now have 4 Minehunters based in Bharain and would be a great source of practical knowledge for a detachment of our personnel. Our choices are to follow a known system from either RN, Belgium/Netherlands, Swedish Navy, or US. It shouldn't be an accident of acquisition as was the case with the "Ton" class CMS's.
                                IMHO best bet for CPV replacement is a modified P60 design, possibly mean an even longer vessel (more berths, some dedicated onboard facilities, crane, work area aft, space for a larger number of TEUs, etc).

                                Dedicated MCMVs are being replaced worldwide by mothership concept, which probably suits our requirements better as they are more multi-role.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X