Thanks Thanks:  360
Likes Likes:  625
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 25 of 35 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 625 of 872

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #601
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    You don’t need to sink a ship, you just need to damage it

  2. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  3. #602
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,152
    Post Thanks / Like
    Combine that with the fact that the St Georges Channel (off the Waterford and Wexford coast) is relatively shallow, but is used as the main transit route for all cargo vessels coming from the American Continent to the UK. Expect this to be busier post brexit as the UK decides to trade directly with the US.
    Just one sunken vessel in the wrong part of the seperation scheme can effectively close this area to larger cargo ships completely, forcing ships into the much narrower channel beetween Scotland and NI..
    Devs video demonstrates the potential damage caused by a relatively small amount of explosives.
    During WW2 Ireland, an emerging economy with an almost non existant ocean going Navy decided the priority was to lay mines to protect its ports. It is a very low tech option. It has been widely agreed internationally that An Qa'ida and their followers may use an attack on international shipping as their next high profile spectacular. We know too well how easy it is to make explosives in this country and we also know that many AQ followers reside here. Home made mines are the easiest option. Either as a suicide attack or remotely operated. Do we chose not to defend against this threat because it has not yet happened? Is it better to wait till after?
    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. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, sofa liked this post
  5. #603
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    Combine that with the fact that the St Georges Channel (off the Waterford and Wexford coast) is relatively shallow, but is used as the main transit route for all cargo vessels coming from the American Continent to the UK. Expect this to be busier post brexit as the UK decides to trade directly with the US.
    Just one sunken vessel in the wrong part of the seperation scheme can effectively close this area to larger cargo ships completely, forcing ships into the much narrower channel beetween Scotland and NI..
    Devs video demonstrates the potential damage caused by a relatively small amount of explosives.
    During WW2 Ireland, an emerging economy with an almost non existant ocean going Navy decided the priority was to lay mines to protect its ports. It is a very low tech option. It has been widely agreed internationally that An Qa'ida and their followers may use an attack on international shipping as their next high profile spectacular. We know too well how easy it is to make explosives in this country and we also know that many AQ followers reside here. Home made mines are the easiest option. Either as a suicide attack or remotely operated. Do we chose not to defend against this threat because it has not yet happened? Is it better to wait till after?
    Mining waters has always been the most cost effective way of closing areas to unwanted attention. It's cheap and can be done rapidly with the right means of implementation. Vast areas such as approaches to Dunkirk, the German west coast, and most of the Baltic was for years subject to following safe routes and swept channels, and prodigious work had to be done by the Minesweeping and clearance units. The Georges channel might not be that easily closed, rather restricted, as it is 50 miles wide from Ramsey Head to Tuskar and would allow for a variation or movement of traffic zones. The depths generally in safe water are in the range 100-300 feet. In choosing ships from now we must do more than float, move, and bits of ATCP.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 29th July 2018 at 09:58.

  6. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV thanked for this post
  7. #604
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    378
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post

    So when, where and who were the last to use a limpet type device: 1985, Auckland NZ, the French Secret Service DGSE.
    Has such a device been used by terrorists: No, even though organisation such as the PLO had for many years access through their state sponsors.
    Would a MCMV have prevented the attack in Auckland? No
    What would have prevented the attack? Better military intelligence and harbour security.

    I still remain to be convinced of the priority given to MCM compared to our threats, but hope someone can convince me!
    As regards to Auckland, its outer gulf was mined both in 1914 and 1940. It caused havoc in the resulting vessels sunk but also in terms of sea denial. Is it a modern priority - no but it has to be a consideration for every defence force.

    As for the Rainbow Warrior. I was at University at the time and remember it well. From the French side it was a well organised operation. The DGSE came into NZ under fake Swiss passports of superb quality. One couple by yacht with the legend that they were honeymooning by sailing the Pacific - everything was entirely convincing to Customs who boarded their vessel in the Bay of Islands. The other group acted as backpacker tourists in a rental camper van. They as trained agents with military backgrounds did covert surveillance on the target the Rainbow Warrior, toured the vessels, acted like young sincere environmentally aware swiss tourists, including one a woman who actually arrived 2 months before and started volunteering for Greenpeace. They also observed the Maritime Police harbour vessel Deodar. No one knows the full story but it is likely that the mine was bought in concealled by the sailing couple who acted as married - a man and a woman, they cleared customs who only did a quick search for narcotics in a small local port in the North called Opua, south to Auckland their vessel was moored close by to where the RW was going to moor - they got weeks before the Rainbow Warrior arrived at Marsden Wharf a few hundred metres away.

    Yes this was not a circumstance for MCM - not their remit, nor military intelligence either - not their jurisdiction. It was a security intelligence job and even though NZ had and still has both Police, Bio Security and Customs Intelligence groups as well as the traditional FEVY's agencies, in 1985 they were all focused and resourced for other priorities - the suspicion of a couple of groups of youngish swiss tourists never really registered. It was a lucky break that a couple of boat club members who were at the clubhouse late on a weeknight thought it strange to see two folk in wetsuits emerge late at night on the usually quiet Stanley Bay beach and get into a Toyota camper and drive off. They took down the number and though the limpet mines went off two of the ten DGSE officers were nabbed.

  8. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, Tempest liked this post
  9. #605
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am not against MCM capability but given out tight resources I would first prefer it we spent what money we have in equipping the vessels we are routinely sending to the Med with proper self-defence systems. A good ESM system linked to soft kill device such as the Rheinmetal MASS just in case anyone take a pop at us with a land launched ASM. And I would prefer we had a stabilise medium caliber RWS to counter small fast craft packed with explosives (or just RPG thugs). Something like the MLG-27 or the Marlin 30mm.

    In the case of the new vessels, why not combine the replacement of the CPV and the EPV into one platform, thinking of the Damen Crossover 131 Combatant. We don't have to fit every system from the start just have the provisions for it. And for MCM work we buy a containerised system that can be easily accommodated in the mission bay of this ship type. And with the cross-crane system it can also handle 2 ACRIMS remote controlled craft. I know we would then go down to a 8 ship NS but I would prefer this than to have a Canterbury type white elephant and two small CPS that would not be as flexible for other missions.

    And if MCM is so high for a "war time" footing then why not develop a true NS Reserve and equip them with some second hand MCMV vessels which will be coming onto the market soon. Just a thought!

  10. Likes Tempest liked this post
  11. #606
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    On a side note, rather than some terrorist planting a mine I would be more worried about the one million tons of munitions that were dumped between 1920 and 1973 in the Irish Sea. It is expected that for bombs etc their casings will corrode away in 70 years while artillery shell take up to 110 years. But the explosives inside will still be potent for many years after.

  12. #607
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,152
    Post Thanks / Like
    No.
    MCM type vessels fit the CPV replacement because of their manouverability in tight confines. They also have the capacity to support any diving ops should that be required. There is a reason vessels become second hand, and it is usually not because the previous owner is looking for a change. It is because their systems are obsolete, and their manning is no longer efficient. We got the Tons from the RN reserve fleet. They were delivered as new. We got the Peacocks nearly new as the UKFO decided the RN no longer needed the Hong Kong squadron. They were less than 5 years old when delivered to us.
    We no longer take other naval hand-me-downs. We have moved on. We now do the handing down, and so it should be. The second hand minehunters you speak of were all built in the 1970s and early 80s. We should not be in a situation where our ships are older than the ships captain. I agree with you on the ESM and RWS system. We managed to get the Rh202 from germany as they were replacing them with the MLG27. It is also more practical as a secondary system than other RWS. If we are destined to head to dangerous places, we need appropriate defences.
    The EPV concept is a totally different requirement for a totally different maritime environment. The primary requirement is for a Larger vessel (120m) to deal with increasing wave height. Once you have that larger vessel you may as well make use of the extra space. Long ago it was decided that this would be in the way of vehicles, containerised equipment and other Army equipment. You could consider a containerised hospital as one option as this vessel (or maybe two, as was originally proposed) but MCM will not be a consideration. Longer vessels do not work well when stopped, as they need forward momentum to prevent rolling, so they are unsuitable as platforms for MCM systems. This is why MCM vessels are short and broad.

    There is a very long thread on the EPV where these details have been well discussed. Perhaps you should have a look there?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  13. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Spark23, DeV, Tempest, hptmurphy liked this post
  14. #608
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    No.
    . Longer vessels do not work well when stopped, as they need forward momentum to prevent rolling, so they are unsuitable as platforms for MCM systems. This is why MCM vessels are short and broad.

    There is a very long thread on the EPV where these details have been well discussed. Perhaps you should have a look there?
    While your assumptions on rolling could be true for all stopped seagoing vessels. The genesis of MCMV's was more on functionality. The USN use from Inchon sized vessels to 68m vessels.

  15. #609
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,152
    Post Thanks / Like
    The USN use inchon sized vessels because the helicopter fleet aboard are equiped for mine clearance.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  16. Likes DeV liked this post
  17. #610
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    The USN use inchon sized vessels because the helicopter fleet aboard are equiped for mine clearance.
    ee

    Therefore what we can say is , given the required functionality that most ships can contribute to MCM. The choice of professionals is a dedicated vessel , however based on typical MCMV's, it seems they can only offer MCM, surveillance, and some survey, with no edgy stuff, and all quite expensively. Bigger Navies can afford ships infrequently used, the rest must look at adaptable ships kitted for purpose.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 31st July 2018 at 08:46.

  18. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #611
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Future naval mine clearance has moved on since the 1950’s.

    Recently the Australians selected a common replacement for the their Huon class MCMVs, their Armidale-class patrol boats and the Leeuwin & Paluma classes of Hydrographic survey ships with the Lürssen OPV-80. The OPV-80 is a 1500t vessel, 80m length with a beam of 14m (so a smaller L/B ratio than the P50 class).

    The contenders for the Belgium/Dutch MCMV are between 1800t and 3500t with lengths between 80 and 85m, Saab MCMV-80, BMT Group Venari 85 and Sea Naval Solutions (STx France) with the Deviceseas. In fact the latter is a modified version of their Deviceseas Corvette. And if we look across the water we have the USN LCS. A key mission of these is MCM (even if the mission module is nit yet ready) and they are 3500t, 115m long and 17.5m vessels (for the Freedom class).

    And why? Because in the future larger vessels will act as motherships to remotely operated smaller vessels. In fact this itself is not new as the German Navy has used the Troika Plus system with the Seahund drones for many years. So I think it would be reasonable to look again at the replacement of the Peacocks and the Eithne to see if a 2 ship common platform would be better.

  20. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  21. #612
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    It depends on if we still want CPVs (with counter mine/IED functionality)?

    There are arguments for and against

    There is a WP15 review in process I think

  22. #613
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    It depends on if we still want CPVs (with counter mine/IED functionality)?

    There are arguments for and against

    There is a WP15 review in process I think
    Exactly.
    We already know from years of operational use of the Peacocks and the Tons before them of the limitations of such vessels. If we take the P50/60 vessels out of the equations and see what roles we like the NS to deal with, then we can decide if we need 2 new CPV and 1 new EPV/MRV or an alternative solution.

    Looking at the Crossover 131C as an example we can define a range of mission scenarios:
    (a) Fishery Patrol: almost bare ship with 2-4 ribs loaded, could also carry a drone.
    (b) Operation Sophia, iMast contains a good sensor suite including ESM for monitoring of onland communications, the X-deck could carry an CB-90 and an LCVP. The CB-90 to deal with potential small fast hazards, the LCVP to aid in the rescue from those large inflatables. (Could be other partners providing the CB-90 and LCVP, also to provide a helicopter or two)
    (c) MCM; a containerised mine warfare system including containers for NS divers. On the X-deck 2-4 remotely operated MCM drones such as the ACRIMS, and still have space for some ribs.
    (d) Army transport; 128 troops and vehicles on the X-deck (although I would expect most troops to be flown to the AoA). Use of the aft or side door for offloading.
    (e) Humanitarian Relief; containerised medical facility, 2 LCVPs to provide independent landing capability, and if we can convince the AC maybe an AW-139 or two.

    Given the size of the vessel it should be possible to combine all in one. But again this is just one option.

  23. #614
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Exactly.
    We already know from years of operational use of the Peacocks and the Tons before them of the limitations of such vessels. If we take the P50/60 vessels out of the equations and see what roles we like the NS to deal with, then we can decide if we need 2 new CPV and 1 new EPV/MRV or an alternative solution.

    Looking at the Crossover 131C as an example we can define a range of mission scenarios:
    (a) Fishery Patrol: almost bare ship with 2-4 ribs loaded, could also carry a drone.
    (b) Operation Sophia, iMast contains a good sensor suite including ESM for monitoring of onland communications, the X-deck could carry an CB-90 and an LCVP. The CB-90 to deal with potential small fast hazards, the LCVP to aid in the rescue from those large inflatables. (Could be other partners providing the CB-90 and LCVP, also to provide a helicopter or two)
    (c) MCM; a containerised mine warfare system including containers for NS divers. On the X-deck 2-4 remotely operated MCM drones such as the ACRIMS, and still have space for some ribs.
    (d) Army transport; 128 troops and vehicles on the X-deck (although I would expect most troops to be flown to the AoA). Use of the aft or side door for offloading.
    (e) Humanitarian Relief; containerised medical facility, 2 LCVPs to provide independent landing capability, and if we can convince the AC maybe an AW-139 or two.

    Given the size of the vessel it should be possible to combine all in one. But again this is just one option.
    Given the size of our Navy and it's one base infrastructure, a multirole capability within the Fleet is a positive. The downside is the level of inhouse expertise required in ships generally or available fully trained for mission tasks. There is also the possibility of conflicting requirements for specialist capabilities while on mission eg MCM , HADR, replenishment and troop movements to or from landing areas.

  24. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #615
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Given the size of our Navy and it's one base infrastructure, a multirole capability within the Fleet is a positive. The downside is the level of inhouse expertise required in ships generally or available fully trained for mission tasks. There is also the possibility of conflicting requirements for specialist capabilities while on mission eg MCM , HADR, replenishment and troop movements to or from landing areas.
    But in terms of crew training would we not have this with a MCM enabled CPV? If we are honest it too would spend the vast majority of its time on FP operations and very little on MCM. The same goes for the EPV-MRV, how often would the staff of the medical unit be deployed on the ship?

  26. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  27. #616
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    But in terms of crew training would we not have this with a MCM enabled CPV? If we are honest it too would spend the vast majority of its time on FP operations and very little on MCM. The same goes for the EPV-MRV, how often would the staff of the medical unit be deployed on the ship?
    Obviously on mission deployment, however on such mission elements of MCM may also be required to clear ship access and maybe also an increased layer of ship defence for asymmetric or other attacks .

  28. #617
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,816
    Post Thanks / Like
    Time to put some perspective on all this.

    How many times have the naval service had to deal with mines directly with ships in the past 40 years?

    Nil !!!!!!...None...Nada Sweet FA

    All mines have been dealt with by Naval Divers and EOD....so why are we getting tied up in types of operation we can do without having to buy specialist vessels.

    Just buy two more P61s to replace the CPVs,.........
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  29. Likes morpheus, EUFighter liked this post
  30. #618
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    But in terms of crew training would we not have this with a MCM enabled CPV? If we are honest it too would spend the vast majority of its time on FP operations and very little on MCM. The same goes for the EPV-MRV, how often would the staff of the medical unit be deployed on the ship?
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Given the size of our Navy and it's one base infrastructure, a multirole capability within the Fleet is a positive. The downside is the level of inhouse expertise required in ships generally or available fully trained for mission tasks. There is also the possibility of conflicting requirements for specialist capabilities while on mission eg MCM , HADR, replenishment and troop movements to or from landing areas.
    i would imagine that if they are looking at MCM/CIED that capability would be houses within NSDS, they after all already have ROVs and SSS

    Same with a hospital capability, it would be army/HSE/willing NGO manned

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Time to put some perspective on all this.



    How many times have the naval service had to deal with mines directly with ships in the past 40 years?

    Nil !!!!!!...None...Nada Sweet FA

    All mines have been dealt with by Naval Divers and EOD....so why are we getting tied up in types of operation we can do without having to buy specialist vessels.

    Just buy two more P61s to replace the CPVs,.........
    As we have said before:
    - it’s in the WP, therefore Government wanted it (or at the very least aspired to it) and DoD and/or DFHQ believe there is a threat (to some degree) and there is an MCM requirement

    - who could have foreseen in 2014 that an Irish OPV would be deployed in the Med and have rescued over 17,500 people over 2 years

    - it is very unlikely to be 2 dedicated MCMVs (if for no other reason than the rest of the world is heading away from dedicated MCMVs).

    - there are many ways of delivering this kind of capability (anything from a small vessel with lots of working space aft for LARS, NSDS containers etc, more OPVs, more MCM capable UUVs for NSDS etc.

  31. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  32. #619
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,768
    Post Thanks / Like
    In terms of the WP are we still going to have that interim review and if so when would that be? As said who would have predicted our OPV's operating multiple years now in the Med for example?

  33. #620
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of the WP are we still going to have that interim review and if so when would that be? As said who would have predicted our OPV's operating multiple years now in the Med for example?
    1st WP Update to be completed before the end of 2018

  34. #621
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,768
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    1st WP Update to be completed before the end of 2018
    If so shouldn't it have started? Wonder what the format would be, a large scale look at where we are/planned and changes, or just the DOD box ticking with nothing changed?

  35. #622
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    If so shouldn't it have started? Wonder what the format would be, a large scale look at where we are/planned and changes, or just the DOD box ticking with nothing changed?
    I think the Minister mentioned it had started a few weeks ago

  36. Thanks Sparky42 thanked for this post
  37. #623
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,768
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I think the Minister mentioned it had started a few weeks ago
    Cheers, I wonder what if anything we'll see as an outcome for example manpower in the navy given the Shaw, or look at the future purchases now that we are doing out of EEZ operations, AC roles etc.

  38. #624
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Cheers, I wonder what if anything we'll see as an outcome for example manpower in the navy given the Shaw, or look at the future purchases now that we are doing out of EEZ operations, AC roles etc.
    The WP 2015 has an implementation window ending in 2025, with an intention for review to meet planned targets. The target of maintaining PDF strength at 9500 is a limiting factor and encourages inter service displacement of strengths ie more for one is less for another Corps. The Naval Service still lacks a combat function to allow it to participate in maritime peacekeeping/enforcement missions. The next replacement ships needs to include this capability in their multirole purposes and provide ideal launching/ recovery systems for unmanned systems, HADR, and Army co-op roles at home and abroad.
    If you take in the paucity of Budget allocations throughout the PDF there are little grounds for certainty that the squeeze on Capital needs will be eased.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 2nd August 2018 at 07:25.

  39. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, EUFighter liked this post
  40. #625
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The WP 2015 has an implementation window ending in 2025, with an intention for review to meet planned targets. The target of maintaining PDF strength at 9500 is a limiting factor and encourages inter service displacement of strengths ie more for one is less for another Corps. The Naval Service still lacks a combat function to allow it to participate in maritime peacekeeping/enforcement missions. The next replacement ships needs to include this capability in their multirole purposes and provide ideal launching/ recovery systems for unmanned systems, HADR, and Army co-op roles at home and abroad.
    If you take in the paucity of Budget allocations throughout the PDF there are little grounds for certainty that the squeeze on Capital needs will be eased.
    The UNSCR which Op Sophia is operating under to enforce the Libyan arms embargo allows all means to be used (in effect it is an enforcement mission.

    Hopefully the defence capital spending increase in NDP will mean less current expenditure needs to be diverted to capita

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. L.T.Smash!

Posting Permissions

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