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 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 .

    Comment


    • 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

      Comment


      • 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?
        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

        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.

        Comment


        • 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?

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • 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?

              Comment


              • 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

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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; 2 August 2018, 08:25.

                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        1st WP Update to be completed before the end of 2018
                        You put far too much faith in White Papers.

                        Given the changes in political entities in government the contents of any white paper can be pushed out or even put on hold indefinetely

                        In the case of ships unless there are hulls on the blocks in the early power change, the likely hood of any being announced toward the life span of any government is highly unlikely. Given we are within 12 months of an election the only possible replacement that will be announced will be for Eithne...indeed if any at all within the remaining life of this government.
                        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          You put far too much faith in White Papers.

                          Given the changes in political entities in government the contents of any white paper can be pushed out or even put on hold indefinetely

                          In the case of ships unless there are hulls on the blocks in the early power change, the likely hood of any being announced toward the life span of any government is highly unlikely. Given we are within 12 months of an election the only possible replacement that will be announced will be for Eithne...indeed if any at all within the remaining life of this government.
                          Which is possibly why work is progressing on the MRV tender (but not afaik on the CPV replacements)

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Given that the WP2015 will have been based upon the operational experience up to that point there was no real focus on anything much more than FP except for the mention of MCM/IEDs. Now after the years of Operation Pontus and the current Operation Sophia hopefully the horizon will be broadened. Years of close co-operation with other EU naval forces is bound to have an effect. As the politicos seems to have identified such operations as good PR/photo ops we can expect some movement. If nothing more that an appreciation of passive defence for our ships.

                            Comment


                            • In relation to having multi-role capabilities (sorry from DAMEN again) these can be had in a smaller platform. Damen have been pushing for a few years their Sigma 10514 with their so called SIGMA Multi Mission Bay. This is on a vessel with a beam of 14m (same as P50/60 classes) and offers a modular bay below the helicopter landing deck. Mission configurations range from Humanitarian Aid, Special Forces Support, Anti Submarine Warfare, Mine Counter Measure Operations to Mine Laying capabilities.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA_MMB.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	65.3 KB
ID:	698210Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA_MMB1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	150.0 KB
ID:	698211Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA_MMB2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	43.2 KB
ID:	698212Click image for larger version

Name:	SIGMA_MMB3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	178.9 KB
ID:	698213

                              The RIBs shown are the FRISC-1100 an 11m version of the Fast Riding Interception and Special forces Craft but this could also be the 11m Atlas ACRIMS remote mine warfare craft.

                              The MMB is part of an offer of SIGMA 10514 vessels to the Polish Navy while the Mexican Navy will introduce soon the SIGMA 10514 POLA an extended range patrol vessel.
                              Last edited by EUFighter; 4 August 2018, 13:23.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                In relation to having multi-role capabilities (sorry from DAMEN again) these can be had in a smaller platform. Damen have been pushing for a few years their Sigma 10514 with their so called SIGMA Multi Mission Bay. This is on a vessel with a beam of 14m (same as P50/60 classes) and offers a modular bay below the helicopter landing deck. Mission configurations range from Humanitarian Aid, Special Forces Support, Anti Submarine Warfare, Mine Counter Measure Operations to Mine Laying capabilities.

                                [ATTACH]8556[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8557[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8558[/ATTACH][ATTACH]8559[/ATTACH]

                                The RIBs shown are the FRISC-1100 an 11m version of the Fast Riding Interception and Special forces Craft but this could also be the 11mm Atlas ACRIMS remote mine warfare craft.

                                The MMB is part of an offer of SIGMA 10514 vessels to the Polish Navy while the Mexican Navy will introduce soon the SIGMA 10514 POLA an extended range patrol vessel.
                                The idea is viable provided the shore infrastructure is adapted to implement role change between the different options. In this case all containerised units are railed in through stern apertures requiring shore loading facilities/cranes. There would also need to be a range of crew skills provided for to adjust crew to the required roles.
                                In regard to OP SOPHIA and enforcement mandates I would imagine the Italian Command are watching individual ship capabilities and tasking them accordingly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X