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 33 of 35 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 LastLast
Results 801 to 825 of 858

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #801
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Whatever ship we get built for the Multi Role, it must add to jointedness within the Navy, RAS etc, and also military deployments, plus HADR incidents, plus towing capability, self Defence, and HQ facilities at Sea and support to those on shore. The first considerations are Speed, Range, and Tonnage Payload. How many Tonnes to be loaded and how many Tonnes to be discharged to or for others, and what is the take up of ballast to keep the vessel operable at sea.
    Any vessel size can be multi-roled, just because we are supposed to get a 130m MRV does not mean that this term can only be applied to that vessel. It is just a name, they can be called Multi-Role Auxiliary Vessel or Multi-Purpose Vessel it does not mean a thing really. The vessel listed would not be for troop transport but for the large vessels to replace the CPVs.
    They are MRV's because of what they can do: Fishery protection, environmental protection, traffic control, towing, fire fighting, oil recovering, rescue/salvage operations, diving operations, ROV support et.al.

  2. Likes CTU, DeV liked this post
  3. #802
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Any vessel size can be multi-roled, just because we are supposed to get a 130m MRV does not mean that this term can only be applied to that vessel. It is just a name, they can be called Multi-Role Auxiliary Vessel or Multi-Purpose Vessel it does not mean a thing really. The vessel listed would not be for troop transport but for the large vessels to replace the CPVs.
    They are MRV's because of what they can do: Fishery protection, environmental protection, traffic control, towing, fire fighting, oil recovering, rescue/salvage operations, diving operations, ROV support et.al.
    I agree that any vessel can be tasked, and even temporarily fitted, for a range of roles. The MRV concept was to include such flexibility but also include lane metres for vehicles, passage accommodation for troops or those in need of emergency evacuation, Cranes to deploy P & S LCVP and RHIB's . For budget purposes it has been described as MRV. We have certainly multi roled our existing vessels, especially in the Mediterranean in the last couple of years. The new vessel will have all the capabilities built in.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 26th January 2020 at 10:20.

  4. #803
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    They aren’t CPVs but interesting placement of TEUs aft of the RHIBs on HMS Medway (River class Batch 2)

    https://twitter.com/navylookout/stat...470426112?s=21

  5. #804
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think there is scope for 2 different vessels. The EPV/MRV which is a large vessel which has helideck and lane metres. The other vessel, a CPV replacement, which can do some of the inshore patrol, but also has facilities to act as ETV or Dive support vessel.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  6. Likes CTU, EUFighter liked this post
  7. #805
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    They aren’t CPVs but interesting placement of TEUs aft of the RHIBs on HMS Medway (River class Batch 2)

    https://twitter.com/navylookout/stat...470426112?s=21
    it's a flight deck and it's just "resting " there for a project or transportation.

  8. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  9. #806
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    it's a flight deck and it's just "resting " there for a project or transportation.

    Look again

    Starboard side aft of the RHIB and before the flight deck

  10. #807
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Look again

    Starboard side aft of the RHIB and before the flight deck
    It seems it is all equipment and vehicles for the Carribean. It is Not a normal part of the ships outfit. Eithne could do the same but not the remaining ships as they are restricted due to oversight of not including Flight Decks. I did miss the blue and mini-container on stbd-side. Small Navies shouldn't build ships of restricted use as you are stuck with your choice for about 40 years. Working with CG helicopters far offshore limits their choices and safety if you cannot offer a flight deck as a haven.
    The USCG had a ship return from a 9 month deployment on drug interdiction in her 53 year of service. She offloaded $78m USD of cocaine on return. USCG ACTIVE.

  11. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  12. #808
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Look again

    Starboard side aft of the RHIB and before the flight deck
    Her twitter feed is now showing the second container moved forward like the one on the starboard side.
    https://twitter.com/HMS_Medway

  13. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #809
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Her twitter feed is now showing the second container moved forward like the one on the starboard side.
    https://twitter.com/HMS_Medway
    It might be better stowed more into the centerline behind the accommodation block as the port side will be the predominant weather side going East/west across the Atlantic.

  15. #810
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    We also (given the role they will have) need to keep an eye on what other countries are doing/looking at:

    https://wavellroom.com/2020/04/04/hunt-the-replacement/
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ill-look-like/

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ot-in-belgium/

    https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-and-surveying

    https://youtu.be/PsjQvjfBLLU

    https://saabgroup.com/globalassets/c...nov-2017_2.pdf

    Realistically we are never going to get a dedicated MCMV CPV so we need a vessel with space for TEUs and crane/LARS
    Last edited by DeV; 5th April 2020 at 12:40.

  16. Thanks Tempest thanked for this post
  17. #811
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    We also (given the role they will have) need to keep an eye on what other countries are doing/looking at:

    https://wavellroom.com/2020/04/04/hunt-the-replacement/
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ill-look-like/

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...ot-in-belgium/

    https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-and-surveying

    https://youtu.be/PsjQvjfBLLU

    https://saabgroup.com/globalassets/c...nov-2017_2.pdf

    Realistically we are never going to get a dedicated MCMV CPV so we need a vessel with space for TEUs and crane/LARS
    The is an old saying about plane: "if it looks good, it will fly". Looking at what the Belgians and the Dutch have selected must rate as the ugliest naval vessel ever to be proposed. The was a half decent design from Damen but it had the wrong flag on it.

    Saab no longer has the MCMV80 on their website since the selection for Belgian Dutch contract but seeing that a derivative has already been built and in in-service (Singapore LMV) I am sure if anyone showed interest they would gladly offer it. From the design available today it seems to have the most flexibility, with many different fit-outs been proposed. Looking to the future (past Covid-19 and post MRV) if we did replace the Peacock with the Saab offering we could also take the same design as a replacement for the P50's which will be reaching the end of the 30 years lives at the end of this decade.

  18. #812
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The is an old saying about plane: "if it looks good, it will fly". Looking at what the Belgians and the Dutch have selected must rate as the ugliest naval vessel ever to be proposed. The was a half decent design from Damen but it had the wrong flag on it.

    Saab no longer has the MCMV80 on their website since the selection for Belgian Dutch contract but seeing that a derivative has already been built and in in-service (Singapore LMV) I am sure if anyone showed interest they would gladly offer it. From the design available today it seems to have the most flexibility, with many different fit-outs been proposed. Looking to the future (past Covid-19 and post MRV) if we did replace the Peacock with the Saab offering we could also take the same design as a replacement for the P50's which will be reaching the end of the 30 years lives at the end of this decade.
    The lead MCM expertise is that provided by the North Sea Countries which includes a common ship and an MCM school. In regard to ship design, it is unwise to have any launching system that follows the craft to be launched, towards and above the release point. If you approach marginal weather conditions, and a swell comes in and lifts the craft upwards, there is a chance of the launcher hitting the craft. The whole affair, as depicted is over designed and more suitable to a trials basin rather than a west coast or open ocean scenario

  19. #813
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    Only Belgium and the Netherlands have a common ship design. The UK has two classes for mine warfare, the Norwegians also have two, the Germans have also two, and the Danes use a containerized system that they can deploy to a number of different ship type.

  20. #814
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Only Belgium and the Netherlands have a common ship design. The UK has two classes for mine warfare, the Norwegians also have two, the Germans have also two, and the Danes use a containerized system that they can deploy to a number of different ship type.
    It is increasingly no longer about the platform (although it has to be taken into consideration), it is about the USVs, AUVs etc that a vessel carries

    We are extremely unlikely to see an Irish dedicated MCMV

    The U.K. and France have a joint MMCM programme on them
    Last edited by DeV; 7th April 2020 at 08:04.

  21. #815
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    It is increasingly no longer about the platform (although it has to be taken into consideration), it is about the USVs, AUVs etc that a vessel carries

    We are extremely unlikely to see an Irish dedicated MCMV

    The U.K. and France have a joint MMCM programme on them
    Our neighbours are having their original pre-eminence in MCM and MCMV's winding down through age and when the last Hunts and Sandowns are gone then they must make a decision. Although they still have an expeditionary MCMV force in the Gulf they, like everybody, are being pushed by the techie companies to adopt AUV solutions to mine clearance. MCM has always been a multi faceted response to a wide range of mining, from moored fields to a wide range of influence mines. There is no guarantee as to which field or individual mine will be used. Like building ships , it would be wise to approach critical operational decisions from an Naval point of view. My own view would be a bit of both.

  22. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  23. #816
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    At present the RN have no plans to replace the Hunt and Sandown classes with anything. The Hunts are rapidly reaching end of useful life, though at least their horrific Deltic engines have all been replaced with something less flammable.
    Many both within and outside the RN see this class of ship as a vital tool not just in its design purpose, but also in giving young officers experience commanding a ship before moving on to a frigate or Destroyer. Their surveying abilities proved most useful reopening the port of Basra to shipping in the aftermath of the 2nd Gulf war.
    The last of the Tupperware navy.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. #817
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    Although the majority of future generation of MCMV all seem to rely on containerized systems with There is an issue with which type of platform that USV's, AUV's et al, there is an issue about what type of platform do you want to base them on. (Although most are now between 1800t and 2000t).

    The proposal for the Belgian/Dutch vessels is very much dedicated towards MCM, and optimized for use in the coastal waters and Belgium, Netherland as well as English Channel/altic.
    It will have some secondary ability for patrol but this will be limited.

    The Australian Navy has basically selected an OPV to provide it's future MCM capability. The Arafura class being based upon the Lurssen OPV80 design. It like most will have a containerized system but its design allows for a more multi-role ship. This means that is will be suited to patrol duties just as much as it is for MCM.

    If the intention is to replace the Peacock's with a large vessel with MCM capability then it would make more sense to have a design like the Arafura or Saab MCMV80 classes.

  25. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  26. #818
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Our neighbours are having their original pre-eminence in MCM and MCMV's winding down through age and when the last Hunts and Sandowns are gone then they must make a decision. Although they still have an expeditionary MCMV force in the Gulf they, like everybody, are being pushed by the techie companies to adopt AUV solutions to mine clearance. MCM has always been a multi faceted response to a wide range of mining, from moored fields to a wide range of influence mines. There is no guarantee as to which field or individual mine will be used. Like building ships , it would be wise to approach critical operational decisions from an Naval point of view. My own view would be a bit of both.
    I would contend that it is also driven as being less risky to the mothership (or MCMV), can be done quicker and more efficiently and due to the mothership concept by non-specialist vessels (ie not MCMVs)

  27. #819
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Although the majority of future generation of MCMV all seem to rely on containerized systems with There is an issue with which type of platform that USV's, AUV's et al, there is an issue about what type of platform do you want to base them on. (Although most are now between 1800t and 2000t).

    The proposal for the Belgian/Dutch vessels is very much dedicated towards MCM, and optimized for use in the coastal waters and Belgium, Netherland as well as English Channel/altic.
    It will have some secondary ability for patrol but this will be limited.

    The Australian Navy has basically selected an OPV to provide it's future MCM capability. The Arafura class being based upon the Lurssen OPV80 design. It like most will have a containerized system but its design allows for a more multi-role ship. This means that is will be suited to patrol duties just as much as it is for MCM.

    If the intention is to replace the Peacock's with a large vessel with MCM capability then it would make more sense to have a design like the Arafura or Saab MCMV80 classes.
    Or modified versions of the P50 / P60 class in our case???
    Last edited by DeV; 7th April 2020 at 11:41.

  28. #820
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Although the majority of future generation of MCMV all seem to rely on containerized systems with There is an issue with which type of platform that USV's, AUV's et al, there is an issue about what type of platform do you want to base them on. (Although most are now between 1800t and 2000t).

    The proposal for the Belgian/Dutch vessels is very much dedicated towards MCM, and optimized for use in the coastal waters and Belgium, Netherland as well as English Channel/altic.
    It will have some secondary ability for patrol but this will be limited.

    The Australian Navy has basically selected an OPV to provide it's future MCM capability. The Arafura class being based upon the Lurssen OPV80 design. It like most will have a containerized system but its design allows for a more multi-role ship. This means that is will be suited to patrol duties just as much as it is for MCM.

    If the intention is to replace the Peacock's with a large vessel with MCM capability then it would make more sense to have a design like the Arafura or Saab MCMV80 classes.
    Let's trial and see hands on, what works with other equipped navies. Don't rely on the tech pedlars that are using large amounts of other peoples technology. Remember we are trying to counter a threat that is variable but amenable to production by anybody with a good tech industry. With components knowing no boundaries most bits will come from the far East.

  29. #821
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Let's trial and see hands on, what works with other equipped navies. Don't rely on the tech pedlars that are using large amounts of other peoples technology. Remember we are trying to counter a threat that is variable but amenable to production by anybody with a good tech industry. With components knowing no boundaries most bits will come from the far East.
    While also trying to increase our capacity to meet the order threats the NS faces and that means an all weather PV. Generally MCMVs are relatively slow max 17kts.

  30. #822
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by DeV; 8th April 2020 at 10:34.

  31. #823
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hunt Class will be around until the 2030s, unless funding cuts mean they are withdrawn from service prematurely.

    According to this article, the hulls are good for sixty years, and they are undergoing rolling refits.

    https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/h...-mine-hunting/

    I believe they were very expensive at the time of building, but a good investment.

    That article also suggests that procurement for 'Motherships' to operate the autonomous drones will start around 2026, and could be anything from converted North Sea Supply ships, or something like this;

    https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bmt...arfare-vessel/

    All of course dependant on post COVID-19 budgets...

    Western Mine-hunting has always very much been a coalition business;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_2
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  32. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  33. #824
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Hunt Class will be around until the 2030s, unless funding cuts mean they are withdrawn from service prematurely.

    According to this article, the hulls are good for sixty years, and they are undergoing rolling refits.

    https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/h...-mine-hunting/

    I believe they were very expensive at the time of building, but a good investment.

    That article also suggests that procurement for 'Motherships' to operate the autonomous drones will start around 2026, and could be anything from converted North Sea Supply ships, or something like this;

    https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bmt...arfare-vessel/

    All of course dependant on post COVID-19 budgets...

    Western Mine-hunting has always very much been a coalition business;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...asures_Group_2
    Our ships have done passing exercises with Standing Nato MCM Vessels. I still think we should decide our future involvements with MCM by interacting with the practitioners who have successfully proven their systems whether autonomous or mixed with clearance diving.

  34. Thanks spider thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo liked this post
  35. #825
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,402
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  36. Thanks DeV thanked for 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
  •