Thanks Thanks:  309
Likes Likes:  541
Dislikes Dislikes:  8

View Poll Results: (Realistically) What best to replace the Peacock CPVs with?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like for like (a similarly capable CPV)

    22 34.38%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 60.94%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    3 4.69%
Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930
Results 726 to 746 of 746

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #726
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally posted on >Navy & Naval Reserve >Emergency towing vessel (Reproduced here for relevance to topic)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?
    (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post


    Defence White Paper (2015)

    "..similar vessels with counter-mine and counter-IED capabilities."



    Would suggest that, perhaps in a purely legalistic sense, a Vard-7-80 design with a containerised MCM/UIED capacity aboard would meet the strict prescription.

    Would free up fleet-numbers for two ETVs, but would this approach be sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?

    (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 5th May 2019 at 23:21. Reason: Clarity
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  2. #727
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
    Originally posted on >Navy & Naval Reserve >Emergency towing vessel (Reproduced here for relevance to topic)
    MCM adaptibility of steel vessels restricts use exclusively to off ship remote disposal of specific mines and maybe excludes moored mines and magnetic mines. In any event large deck areas are required for handling of deployable equipments and umbilical connections , not sure if any of the ships mentioned could do sufficient tasks to be classed as MCM compatible.

  3. Thanks DeV, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  4. #728
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is not just the Dutch and Belgians that are replacing GFRP minehunters with steel hulled motherships. The Australian Navy has gone one step further with SEA1180 "Arafura" class which is based upon the Lürssen's OPV80 design. These vessels will replace the Armidale-class patrol boats, the Huon-class minehunters, the Leeuwin-class survey vessels, and the Paluma-class survey motor launches. So it well respected navies around the world can do it why would we be different, especially as its more than 30 years since we had a minesweeper in service and at the time they were hardly "state-of-the-art"??

    So there is a lot of sense as U.S suggested in utilising the P60 design for some MCM missions especially as they already have 3 TEU spaces, a decent crane and if the 3rd RIB was deleted (do we need three?) there is even more space available. True the DP should be improved but this could be done on two new modified vessels. At least then there would be commonality over almost all the ships in service.

  5. Thanks The Usual Suspect, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes The Usual Suspect, DeV liked this post
  6. #729
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Closer to 40, all three were broken up in 1987, and had been minding the wall of the basin for many years beforehand, having been decommissioned in 1984.
    The Ton class whas the best of WW2 design minesweeping technology jammed into 46metres. The main purpose of her design was to try and not detonate the mines they were looking for, hook them on a wire towed between a pair of sweepers, and sink them with gunfire. Hardly hi-tech.
    The third rib space is for a third rib. You can't hang a TEU there. You already have three TEU spots (plus electrical supply) and a heavy duty crane. Make the best of what you have.
    SDC13824
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #730
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    A CPV with MCM/CIED capability may need a NSDS RHIB so the space could come in handy, the thing is that there could well be a need for more than 3 TEUs for MCM/CIED.

    It also needs a work area which is limited with the TEUs.

  9. #731
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=na grohmiti;467566]Closer to 40, all three were broken up in 1987, and had been minding the wall of the basin for many years beforehand, having been decommissioned in 1984.
    The Ton class whas the best of WW2 design minesweeping technology jammed into 46metres. The main purpose of her design was to try and not detonate the mines they were looking for, hook them on a wire towed between a pair of sweepers, and sink them with gunfire. Hardly hi-tech.
    The third rib space is for a third rib. You can't hang a TEU there. You already have three TEU spots (plus electrical supply) and a heavy duty crane. Make the best of what you have.[ Quote

    If you adapt current vessels using the available after deck space, geared towards housing 20ft TEU, then you may not have enough space for at least two large reels for deployment wire and transmission links, and the deployable units . Some of the modern remote controllable units are 36ft long and 10.5 ft wide . No doubt something could be fitted but it would require some redesign on the after end, including relocating deck fittings and maintaining mooring and towing arrangements.

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #732
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Absolutely, in fairness having said that, REMUS 100 (which the NSDS has and can be used for mine detection) can be launched from a RHIB.

    But if we want something that can go deeper and/or actually do more than detect (eg Saab Double Eagle . https://youtu.be/cvjnur9ZCG0 ... then we need a work area and 3-5 TEUs and possibly a larger crane and/or a LARS (which would be advantageous for NSDS anyways)

    The LARS for 2 divers (not sure if it would take AUV) is big... needs a TEU to ship it
    http://www.smp-ltd.com/tcpdf/datashe...tem-(LARS).pdf
    Last edited by DeV; 6th May 2019 at 22:20.

  12. #733
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    See posts 275 and 430 for the NSDS current equipment requirements

  13. #734
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    See posts 275 and 430 for the NSDS current equipment requirements
    There are close links between the Diving Fraternity and modern mine and underwater EOD clearance. It is paramount that such a unit has an in-service facility for both training and operational tasks.Any future MCM capable unit must be worked up in a real envoirment preferably with other similar naval Units. The Belgian/German MCM have both a simulator training unit and school for training their MCM assets. In addition to stated equipment requirements it is crucial that cyber security vis a vis Ecdis, AIS , and all GMDSS are proofed against hacking or spoofing. Viking Sky off Norway may have had an erroneous navigation data incident leading to her distress incident. It goes without saying all ships including MCM must have exact knowledge of position.

  14. Thanks DeV, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #735
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    If we are to go down the USV route your talking a fair amount of space being required (really min 2 TEU before you do anything about the mine that it has detected)
    https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/sol...ms/arcims.html
    https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/fil...p_Brochure.pdf

    There is the Seafox system (but that is expendable for mine disposal, so more required):
    https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/sol...s/seafoxr.html
    https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/fil...005_Seafox.pdf



    The big advantage of something like Saab Double Eagle SAROV is that it can be used for all aspects of MCM and isn’t disposable when it comes to the final phase
    https://saab.com/naval/underwater-sy...e_eagle_sarov/
    https://saab.com/globalassets/commer...agle-sarov.pdf

  16. #736
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by DeV; 8th May 2019 at 09:00.

  17. #737
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    It seems to be a vessel with a range of abilities requiring skilled crew and a wide range of electronic links. It increases number of operators required for operating remote sensors in all dimensions. It is interesting that they don't see an OPV as an adaptable platform. I may have missed it but the actual Tonnage and dimensions of the craft together with stability provisions while deploying 25 tonne units would be good for assessment. It is an answer with some flexibility in other roles.

  18. #738
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as I can see the only vital statistic given is length of 85.9m (on the 1st link)

  19. #739
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Belgium is looking forward to the capability increase it will get with the new MCM flotilla.

    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  20. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, DeV, spider, The Usual Suspect liked this post
  21. #740
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like

  22. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  23. #741
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    REMUS 100 is in use by the NS

    https://www.kongsberg.com/globalasse...-product-range

    This shows the company’s other offering including the type of LARS required

  24. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  25. #742
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some new details on the latest iteration of the next Belgium/Dutch MCMV
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ill-look-like/

  26. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  27. #743
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Some new details on the latest iteration of the next Belgium/Dutch MCMV
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ill-look-like/
    Maybe the functionality of the intended MRV could include elements of a multi-tasking Mother ship. Big enough, space enough?

  28. #744
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Maybe the functionality of the intended MRV could include elements of a multi-tasking Mother ship. Big enough, space enough?
    Once it has space for a few TEUs and a crane it probably could (as could any vessel).

    But doesn’t change the fact that Ciara and Orla have been in service for 31 years and have the worst standard of other ranks Accomodiation in the fleet.

    If they go for an existing design (not necessarily in Irish service) the delivery process will take about 3 years
    Last edited by DeV; 1st June 2019 at 11:04.

  29. #745
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Once it has space for a few TEUs and a crane it probably could (as could any vessel).

    But doesn’t change the fact that Ciara and Orla have been in service for 31 years and have the worst standard of other ranks Accomodiation in the fleet.

    If they go for an existing design (not necessarily in Irish service) the delivery process will take about 3 years
    .

    I think the Ciara and Orla replacements need to meet the provisional tasks as outlined in the White Paper. It must be a dependable provable system for dealing with modern anti-ship mining. Such units should match recommendations from MCM experts and avail of full scale training programs with adjacent navies on an annual basis. I wonder how the half-life refits of Niamh and Roisin are progressing. The latter seems to be on a new for old total rebuild. She will be virtually new when she comes out of DSG Rushbrook.

  30. Likes Turkey, DeV liked this post
  31. #746
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  32. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •