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 paul g View Post
    poland is bringing two 58 metre MCMV into service, a design modified for our conditins could be a runner.
    Interesting though could the design be modified for a good enough price, I suppose also the question should be, should it be optomised directly for our conditions, I mean if we are going to the trouble of getting proper Minesweepers, shouldn't they be optomised for Med/Gulf/Africa conditions as those would be the most likely areas we'd be using such Counter Mine/IED issues?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      So to be replaced with 2 similar vessels with counter-mine & C-IED capabilities (I assume that means MCMVs)

      But practically all MCMV designs are about 2/3rd the size and have a max speed of 60% of the Peacocks. While also have less than 50% of the firepower.
      You heard hoofs and neighs and immediately assumed zebras. These days counter mine and counter IED capability can be something that fits in the back of one or more TEUs, and lash it to the deck aft, with just a good onboard crane to haul it in and out.
      Stick it on the back of a modified Offshore Support vessel design or vessel of similar profile. Purpose built MCMVs are very expensive for their size. Given that mine warfare will only ever be a secondary task, it is not good economy. But you can still get a DP equipped ship, with a bit of bollard pull, and shallow enough to work in the confined waters where the peacocks once went.

      Interesting concept though. It makes absolute sense given the main sea lanes pass to the north and south of us, and have often been identified as a potential target for international terrorism.
      The leaders in this field are still the Tripartites. Belgium France and Netherlands are still regularly disposing of WW1 and WW2 sea mines. Still lethal, still capable of closing a port for an expensively long time. They are the ones with the most up to date experience of live mine warfare. As an aside, this type of vessel also offers an ideal platform for hydrographic survey, as was seen in Iraq after the ousting of Saddam. The RN took some minesweepers in and cleared the port of Umm Qasr of sunken warships.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
        Interesting though could the design be modified for a good enough price, I suppose also the question should be, should it be optomised directly for our conditions, I mean if we are going to the trouble of getting proper Minesweepers, shouldn't they be optomised for Med/Gulf/Africa conditions as those would be the most likely areas we'd be using such Counter Mine/IED issues?
        if you look at it realistically, unless your're a rabid provo, the only real conventional maratime threat comes from submarines laying mines in irish water.

        And the russians have a long history of using mines in the baltic, it allows us to contribute.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
          You heard hoofs and neighs and immediately assumed zebras. These days counter mine and counter IED capability can be something that fits in the back of one or more TEUs, and lash it to the deck aft, with just a good onboard crane to haul it in and out.
          Stick it on the back of a modified Offshore Support vessel design or vessel of similar profile. Purpose built MCMVs are very expensive for their size. Given that mine warfare will only ever be a secondary task, it is not good economy. But you can still get a DP equipped ship, with a bit of bollard pull, and shallow enough to work in the confined waters where the peacocks once went.
          Absolutely, forgot to mention that

          But the WP say "similar vessels" ie probably <1000 tonnes displacement

          Comment


          • Too bad

            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Absolutely, forgot to mention that

            But the WP say "similar vessels" ie probably <1000 tonnes displacement

            I'd like to see the Naval Service procure two of the new River class OPV's to replace the Peacocks.

            Comment


            • The three new River Class OPV's are 90m, and the contract for them is costing the Brits £348 million (I would assume that includes a maintenance contract too). A pricey replacement, plus about a thousand tonnes more than what is suggested in the White Paper.
              What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ODIN View Post
                The three new River Class OPV's are 90m, and the contract for them is costing the Brits £348 million (I would assume that includes a maintenance contract too). A pricey replacement, plus about a thousand tonnes more than what is suggested in the White Paper.
                To be fair the Batch Two Rivers are mainly "we have to give BAE x million because we can't sign off on the Type 26, so let's get some OPVs out of it". That's about the planning level for the decision.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TerryD1957 View Post
                  I'd like to see the Naval Service procure two of the new River class OPV's to replace the Peacocks.
                  So replace the CPV's with something in the P60 size and capability range, with exactly the same shallow water operational restrictions making them unsuitable for CPV work anyway and thereby unnecessarily adding another type to the supply chain?

                  That sort of thinking would get you a long way in the DoD.

                  Comment


                  • Not Government policy

                    The policy is vessels "similar" to the CPVs with "counter-mine and IED" capability
                    Last edited by DeV; 16 October 2015, 11:28.

                    Comment


                    • Given the crewing commitment , cost of operation etc, might as well be an 90m OPV bought in for replacement.


                      We bought sweepers to replace corvettes, which were essentially OPVs, sweepers were handy in shore because of the twin screw capacity that PVs didn't have and sweepers were limited in off shore capacity so the CPV requirement was actually a myth with the Peacocks being bought to replace the sweepers which were never intended to be purchased with a specific inshore capacity,

                      OPV could deploy its RHIBs to do the same job!!

                      The days of the 'Salmon Patrols' and the ensuing actions are long gone..OPVs all the way...
                      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        Could well be but only has 10 days endurance (otherwise good contender. PV55 could be good too but slower (25.5 kts) but has 21 day endurance.


                        http://www.stxmarine.net/pdf/PV55_brochure.pdf
                        I do not have the faintest idea how or why I have clicked "dislike" on this post.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          Given the crewing commitment , cost of operation etc, might as well be an 90m OPV bought in for replacement.


                          We bought sweepers to replace corvettes, which were essentially OPVs, sweepers were handy in shore because of the twin screw capacity that PVs didn't have and sweepers were limited in off shore capacity so the CPV requirement was actually a myth with the Peacocks being bought to replace the sweepers which were never intended to be purchased with a specific inshore capacity,

                          OPV could deploy its RHIBs to do the same job!!

                          The days of the 'Salmon Patrols' and the ensuing actions are long gone..OPVs all the way...
                          Salmon patrols are still done AFAIK

                          Comment


                          • CPV arrested a vessel last week fishing for sprat within Waterford harbour. Would the OPVs be able to operate easily in these confined waters?
                            Two fishing vessels detained in Waterford

                            Two fishing vessels were detained by the Irish Naval Service and escorted into Dunmore East this morning.

                            It is alleged they were fishing for sprat without authorisation.

                            The two vessels were observed fishing in Waterford Harbour by the Fisheries Monitoring Centre.

                            The LE Ciara which was in the area was sent to investigate and boarded the trawlers.

                            Both were detained at around 10.30am after allegedly fishing for sprat.

                            Fishing for herring and sprat is prohibited on the South East Coast from September 20 to December 31.

                            The trawlers were escorted to Dunmore East and handed over to gardaí, which is normal procedure.

                            A spokesperson for the Irish Naval Service said: "During the boarding and inspection of the two vessels a minor confrontation occurred between the two fishing vessels and a number of local boats.

                            "It is alleged by one of the detained boats that his nets have been damaged," adding that "this is a civil law matter".
                            Two fishing vessels were detained by the Irish Naval Service and escorted into Dunmore East this morning.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              CPV arrested a vessel last week fishing for sprat within Waterford harbour. Would the OPVs be able to operate easily in these confined waters?

                              http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakin...rd-701087.html
                              Yes, very much so, its the ribs that do the boarding, actually a slip launch from Dunmore by the SFPA would have done the job, seas being moderate.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ODIN View Post
                                The three new River Class OPV's are 90m, and the contract for them is costing the Brits £348 million (I would assume that includes a maintenance contract too). A pricey replacement, plus about a thousand tonnes more than what is suggested in the White Paper.
                                The new Rivers are not exactly what they appear to be Odin. In fact they are a "con" cooked up by Westminster and BAE. The intention was to "sell" the project to the Scottish people as a £348 million investment in Scotland prior to the Referrendum. BAE (essentially based in England) was to be paid the money anyway for doing exactly NOTHING.

                                They also recieved money for the cost of arguably meaningless "redesigns" (possibly the actual cost of the OPVs) including a "Merlin capable" helipad (no hangar).
                                They are intended to replace not augument the current three Rivers which will probably be sold.(they might be good buys for NS if they come to market) Anyone who imagines that these OPVs will be patrolling the North Atlantic in winter with a Merlin strapped on their backs needs their head examined.
                                Last edited by Galloglass; 17 October 2015, 14:35.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X