Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
CPV Replacement
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe 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
-
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.
- Likes 1
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 PostI'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?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostIt 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?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThere 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.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThere 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.
- Likes 4
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostDepends 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 PostThe 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
-
Yet another indication of the need to be able to protect our undersea territory. An interesting read.
Losharik - A Deep-Diving Sub. A Deadly Fire. And Russia’s Secret Undersea Agenda.https://t.co/dwsGdwNT90 pic.twitter.com/JiiWCMzZqI
— NavyLookout (@NavyLookout) April 23, 2020For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
[QUOTE=na grohmiti;474890]Yet another indication of the need to be able to protect our undersea territory. An interesting read.
Losharik - A Deep-Diving Sub. A Deadly Fire.
There has been some papers on this 1000 tonne mini- sub and it's deploy-ability from a much larger mother-ship, also another submarine. The Losharik is supposed to be fitted with large tool arms which are reported to be capable of picking up things or cutting underwater cables or piping systems. It's inevitable that communications and seabed supply systems will be a target.
Comment
-
From OPV replacement thread
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostNow 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.
Dedicated MCMVs are being replaced worldwide by mothership concept, which probably suits our requirements better as they are more multi-role.
Comment
Comment