Thanks Thanks:  357
Likes Likes:  620
Dislikes Dislikes:  13

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

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

    22 33.85%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 60.00%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    4 6.15%
Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 858

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #826
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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!

  2. #827
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  3. #828
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  4. Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #829
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  6. #830
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  7. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #831
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  9. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  10. #832
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  12. #833
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  13. Thanks EUFighter, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo, spider liked this post
  14. #834
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  15. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  16. #835
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  17. #836
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  18. #837
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  19. #838
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yet another indication of the need to be able to protect our undersea territory. An interesting read.
    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 Flamingo, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes spider liked this post
  21. #839
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=na grohmiti;474890]Yet another indication of the need to be able to protect our undersea territory. An interesting read.

  22. #840
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    From OPV replacement thread

    Quote 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.

  23. #841
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    On a related note

    In no way suggesting them as suitable for the NS or as a MCM but interesting

    MV Celtic Explorer:
    7 TEUs
    DP1
    Designed to be very quiet
    Cranes
    ROV
    Good standard of Accomodiation
    Aft work area
    https://www.marine.ie/Home/sites/def...df?language=en


    ILV Granuaile:
    16 TEUs
    DP1Cranes
    ROV
    Good standard of Accomodiation
    Aft work area
    Heli pad
    40t bollard tow
    Moon pool
    https://www.irishlights.ie/commercia...-services.aspx
    https://www.irishlights.ie/media/105...-Granuaile.pdf
    Last edited by DeV; 17th May 2020 at 10:51.

  24. #842
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I have said before, there will be a glut of recently built offshore support vessels with DP and work deck aft, some even with helideck on the roof, and cranes that compensate for the movement of the sea beneath.
    NZ just got one as a dive support ship.
    Mine clearance is moving to unmanned small craft. The mother ship just needs space to accomodate them and their systems, and a crane to launch and recover them.
    The solution is in the offshore industry, we just need a coat of paint, and some minor conversions to the deck layout.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  25. #843
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    The SB has now been in service for 6 years, each has space for 3 TEU's and each has a 4t crane, so how often have we trialed a containerized MCM system?
    While the crane is too small for a USV it would be capable of launching and recovery of ROVs, and the mission control systems can be housed in a container. It might not be perfect be to do a trial would show the limitations and requirements for such a system.

    No matter that some seem to be going for the mothership concept one thing that differentiates these vessels from an offshore support vessel is that they have mine detection sonars fitted as standard.

  26. #844
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The SB has now been in service for 6 years, each has space for 3 TEU's and each has a 4t crane, so how often have we trialed a containerized MCM system?
    While the crane is too small for a USV it would be capable of launching and recovery of ROVs, and the mission control systems can be housed in a container. It might not be perfect be to do a trial would show the limitations and requirements for such a system.

    No matter that some seem to be going for the mothership concept one thing that differentiates these vessels from an offshore support vessel is that they have mine detection sonars fitted as standard.
    See posts 430 and 592

    NSDS has, not sure about The MCM capability

    The thing is that it is becoming normal for the USV to carry the mine detection sonar not the mothership. It extends the range and keeps the mothership further out of harms way.

  27. #845
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    See posts 430 and 592

    NSDS has, not sure about The MCM capability

    The thing is that it is becoming normal for the USV to carry the mine detection sonar not the mothership. It extends the range and keeps the mothership further out of harms way.
    This is why I say we need to deploy a team to a working mothership/minehunter and get an overview of what the professionals are working with and get some info on their wish list. I think the sonar on the Mother ship and that on the AUV are both required for dealing with a mine incident. The ship mounted mine detection sonar works at safer ranges around 1000m and gives data to enable intervention by the AUV. We need to decide are we going to do all detection and mine destruction by remote vehicles or with clearance divers , or indeed both. If you check with IL and I served 8 years part time on the old Granuaile, their vessels are designed for optimal work in lower sea states.

  28. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes Anzac liked this post
  29. #846
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    The is a lot of hype about USV's to do MCM but they are relatively small boats 11-12m and I have never seen any trials in anything but very low sea states (1-2). They are intended to go in once an area is suspected of having being mined. The ability of these small vessels to launch and recover AUV's will also be limited to very low sea states. While the USV's are expensive the AUV's are not only much more expensive but more prone to damage if not handled correctly.

    But let's step back for a minute, where do we intend to do MCM work? Is it the approaches and entrances to a major commercial harbours? If it is then there is an alternative even if most sea dogs will bark at the idea. With a couple of low loaders and a containerized system the work can be done from land. Atlas Electronik demonstrated this to the RN with the mission control system and other support systems in containers and their 11m USV fitting nicely on a low loader. Deploying from land should present fewer problems at the start and once we are sure that such a system wor we can do the next step and take it to sea.

    Not too sure how the DoD will react to the NS requesting a couple of low loaders and PLS trucks.

  30. Likes DeV liked this post
  31. #847
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,748
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The is a lot of hype about USV's to do MCM but they are relatively small boats 11-12m and I have never seen any trials in anything but very low sea states (1-2). They are intended to go in once an area is suspected of having being mined. The ability of these small vessels to launch and recover AUV's will also be limited to very low sea states. While the USV's are expensive the AUV's are not only much more expensive but more prone to damage if not handled correctly.

    But let's step back for a minute, where do we intend to do MCM work? Is it the approaches and entrances to a major commercial harbours? If it is then there is an alternative even if most sea dogs will bark at the idea. With a couple of low loaders and a containerized system the work can be done from land. Atlas Electronik demonstrated this to the RN with the mission control system and other support systems in containers and their 11m USV fitting nicely on a low loader. Deploying from land should present fewer problems at the start and once we are sure that such a system wor we can do the next step and take it to sea.

    Not too sure how the DoD will react to the NS requesting a couple of low loaders and PLS trucks.
    I would tend to agree but Government policy is 2 vessels capable of MCM/CIED that’s where this came from

  32. #848
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I would tend to agree but Government policy is 2 vessels capable of MCM/CIED that’s where this came from
    I know what was in WP15, but it does not mean it cannot be changed. Technology changes and things develop, today we could have a land based MCM system than was maybe not at the level of maturity in 2014/15 to have been considered. Even if written in stone a chisel can soon change that! Government policy is based upon advise it gets, so if someone was to make the proposal then maybe the policy would change.

  33. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #849
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    I know what was in WP15, but it does not mean it cannot be changed. Technology changes and things develop, today we could have a land based MCM system than was maybe not at the level of maturity in 2014/15 to have been considered. Even if written in stone a chisel can soon change that! Government policy is based upon advise it gets, so if someone was to make the proposal then maybe the policy would change.
    The modern digital manufacturers and the part in particular that interfaces with commercial and Naval maritime worlds are coming up with all kinds of options to do things remotely and at a distance. It varies from paperless ships, to ships without crews from a punt to large oilers, bulkers, and container ships. MCM depending on type of mine is a slow methodical process requiring at times many years to clear a waterway. There must be a reason that a wish to rebuild a MCM ability is emerging in most maritime choke areas from Europe, USA, Middle east, and Asia.

  35. Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #850
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,788
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The modern digital manufacturers and the part in particular that interfaces with commercial and Naval maritime worlds are coming up with all kinds of options to do things remotely and at a distance. It varies from paperless ships, to ships without crews from a punt to large oilers, bulkers, and container ships. MCM depending on type of mine is a slow methodical process requiring at times many years to clear a waterway. There must be a reason that a wish to rebuild a MCM ability is emerging in most maritime choke areas from Europe, USA, Middle east, and Asia.
    The Atlas Electronix system would be useful port based, as it could pass over a channel/entry before ships enter or leave to deal with a magnetic type mine by giving it a large ship magnetic pulse to detonate it. "More complex problems" would have to be dealt with by conventional methods. Most magnetic mines have ship magnetic signatures and counters installed. If a convoy is leaving port it might ignore the first few ships such as escorts, pilot boats, tugs, then take out the fourth ship blocking the channel for both directions, closing the port. Larger approach waterways like in the GULF are taking sometime to clear with 4 RN minehunters. I would avoid miracle cures costing £13m as it cannot be enough to provide a total answer to all of the MCM problem

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
  •