Originally posted by DeV
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OPV Replacement
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostThe RN is using the Arrowhead 140 for the Type 31 (a modified Iver Huitfeldt design) not the smaller 120 though, think the 120 is a different animal to the 140, also given the in service date for the 31's has now slipped to 2027 at the earliest that's a pretty long period to wait even more I would have thought if we are talking about the P31 replacement, though might factor for the P50's.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostThought we were talking about the EPV, as to replacing the 50's, given they are only just going through the MLU it's early to be scoping their replacements already imo.
Leaving the planning of a replacement vessel to the very last minute is what has happen with Eithne and the P40's. Basicalli their replacements should have followed the first 3 P60's but it lapsed. Now of course it might be best to wait for the outcome of the Commission on Defence before launching any tenders. But that would not hinder taking a more active role in the EPC.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThat is the point of this thread, the P50 are getting a refit at the moment but that still means between 2030 and 2035 they will be replaced. This timeframe would put them in the building phase of the PESCO project European Patrol Corvette of which there will be a OPV version. The work of the concept design s now started and should we think that the OPV might be a suitable replacement for the P50s we should get involved early to ensure that our requirement are listened too.
Leaving the planning of a replacement vessel to the very last minute is what has happen with Eithne and the P40's. Basicalli their replacements should have followed the first 3 P60's but it lapsed. Now of course it might be best to wait for the outcome of the Commission on Defence before launching any tenders. But that would not hinder taking a more active role in the EPC.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostThe Type 31e (e for export) you are looking at U.K.£250m a ship
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparky42 View PostThe Eithne's replacement hasn't been last minute, the planning was active, the unfortunate reality is both in 2008 and now when the selection for a new ship seemed imminent we ended up with global economic disruption which screwed over the DF more than most other departments. There's plenty of areas of PESCO we should be more actively engaged with but the 50's replacement isn't the highest priority imo.
However there is no active tender for the Eithne and so even if we stated one tomorrow it would be hard pushed to deliver a ship as complex as the EPV before 2025. So more than 20 years after the initial "planning" took place. There will always be something, that if someone wants too will allow replacement projects to be postponed. Sometimes the interval is shorter, sometimes it is longer but usually every 10 years there is something on a global scale. One of the first things done in project planning are the "risk & ops", the what if's so that such things do not completely stop the project if at all possible.
So the question posed was on the possibility of the EPC being the replacement of the P50s and our involvement to ensure that a variant would be suitable.
Are there other PESCO project where we should be involved ? Yes.
Could & should we propose other PESCO projects? Maybe.
But we all know the reality we are not engaged with PESCO, not with EDA and the other non-PESCO projects or real in PfP and co-operation projects that could bring.
And if we engage on a PESCO project is it a purchase order to buy the final product? No, we can withdraw from the project, we can decide another product better matches our requirement and order that instead.
IMHO and experience the earlier the involvement the better as very early on some key parameters are fixed and these become very difficult later. On the EPC project the first vessels are planned to be delivered in 2027, this means that in the next 2 keys most of the key parameters will be frozen. More importantly and the reason why there are now four countries committed with at least one other posed to join, is that the industrial set-up will be decided. Even if we do not have a shipbuilder there may be potential areas for Irish suppliers, a ship is a big thing and needs lot of equipment.
Comment
-
The EPC is designed to be a fleet vessel with various defensive/offensive roles. We are planning to replace P31 with an MRV with logistical capabilities and to act in support to various military/ HADR roles. The type of concept is , in part, outlined in the Arrowhead Concept dimensions of 120m X 19m. Planning for the MRV must include Flagship duty, carriage of a Military unit to be off-loaded, and re-fuelling helos, and ownships fuel top ups. The tonnages to offload/load need to be allowed for by volume and weight. I put it at about 700 tonne, probably not all at the same time. I was allowing the following weight list--
130 equipped troops 12 tonne, 8 mowags equivalent about 80 tonne, bringalong stores about 5 tonne, JP5 15 tonnes, deliverable fuel 300 tonnes, 6 X 20ft containers about 144 tonne. There would also be Miscellaneous vehicles such as at least one dozer, two fork lift trucks. I round it up to 700 tonnes.
Building such a ship would require preparatory training embedded in similar units and would also require a resilient, available source of personnel.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe EPC is designed to be a fleet vessel with various defensive/offensive roles. We are planning to replace P31 with an MRV with logistical capabilities and to act in support to various military/ HADR roles. The type of concept is , in part, outlined in the Arrowhead Concept dimensions of 120m X 19m. Planning for the MRV must include Flagship duty, carriage of a Military unit to be off-loaded, and re-fuelling helos, and ownships fuel top ups. The tonnages to offload/load need to be allowed for by volume and weight. I put it at about 700 tonne, probably not all at the same time. I was allowing the following weight list--
130 equipped troops 12 tonne, 8 mowags equivalent about 80 tonne, bringalong stores about 5 tonne, JP5 15 tonnes, deliverable fuel 300 tonnes, 6 X 20ft containers about 144 tonne. There would also be Miscellaneous vehicles such as at least one dozer, two fork lift trucks. I round it up to 700 tonnes.
Building such a ship would require preparatory training embedded in similar units and would also require a resilient, available source of personnel.
The EPC is proposed in three basic versions none of which are intended to replace any current fleet units. They are:- EPC optimised for anti-surface (ASuW) and anti-aircraft (AAW) warfare with the possibility of extending the warfare domains to anti-submarine warfare (ASW); the vessel is equipped with self-defence capabilities.
- EPC optimized for ant-surface warfare (ASuW) and designed with oceanic reach (range of 10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots).
- EPC optimized for blue-water (off shore) patrol missions
It is the latter version which might be of interest and the one on which early involvement may ensure that the design would be suitable.
Comment
-
And if the EPC does not make a good match for the replacement of the P50's then perhaps we should just go back to VARD and get two of the new Norwegian Coast Guard vessels:
https://www.vard.com/newsandmedia/ne...l-Agency-.aspx
A bargin at €160m each for a 10,000t patrol vessel.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostAnd if the EPC does not make a good match for the replacement of the P50's then perhaps we should just go back to VARD and get two of the new Norwegian Coast Guard vessels:
https://www.vard.com/newsandmedia/ne...l-Agency-.aspx
A bargin at €160m each for a 10,000t patrol vessel.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostAgain I repeat, there is the EPV Thread for the replacement of the Eithne; here I asked the question on the P50 class and possible relation with the EPC program due to their similar timeframes for building.
The EPC is proposed in three basic versions none of which are intended to replace any current fleet units. They are:- EPC optimised for anti-surface (ASuW) and anti-aircraft (AAW) warfare with the possibility of extending the warfare domains to anti-submarine warfare (ASW); the vessel is equipped with self-defence capabilities.
- EPC optimized for ant-surface warfare (ASuW) and designed with oceanic reach (range of 10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots).
- EPC optimized for blue-water (off shore) patrol missions
It is the latter version which might be of interest and the one on which early involvement may ensure that the design would be suitable.
Imagine replacing the P50s with 2 frigates
Pie in the sky but if the Commission is to be a serious discussion of our future posture and requirements
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostAnd if the EPC does not make a good match for the replacement of the P50's then perhaps we should just go back to VARD and get two of the new Norwegian Coast Guard vessels:
https://www.vard.com/newsandmedia/ne...l-Agency-.aspx
A bargin at €160m each for a 10,000t patrol vessel.
Comment
Comment