Thanks Thanks:  509
Likes Likes:  671
Dislikes Dislikes:  14
Page 107 of 107 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107
Results 2,651 to 2,670 of 2670

Thread: OPV Replacement

  1. #2651
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    Make no mistake, P31 as delivered was a huge leap in capability from what we had, in terms of machinery, weaponry and sensor fit. Indeed I assume her planning and design would have commenced not long after P20 entered service, so the achievement in that regard is greater still. What those responsible for its design construction and delivery achieved, brought the NS light years ahead of where they were in the mid 70s, with just one Ocean going patrol vessel, and small three coastal patrol minesweepers. Indeed it brought us a long way from any other modern navy in the OPV game, who for the most part were still using a design based on deep sea trawlers. At the time of her launch, only the USCG "Bear" class cutters were comparable, entering service only a few years before P31 was commissioned.

    P31 brought us to an area of naval operations we had never been before, a mere ten years or so after we first started designing and building ships suited for our needs, and not just pressing older unsuited naval vessels into the role. Indeed throughout her service P31 has changed internally to fit a changing role. Compartments have been re-designated, based on use. I believe the Air Corps Pilot cabins have since been re-purposed as a Cadets mess. I'm sure the rec spaces under the helideck came in very useful when the ship was loaded with rescued mediterranean refugees. Ideally located with easy access to the helideck, without having to bring non crew through crew accom spaces.
    The crux of what I read from murphs criticism though is not so much of P31 herself, but of the opportunities lost through the failure to follow up and modify the design based on experience in operation. This was what happened with the P20 class, each ship being an improvement on what came before, and more recently with the P50 class. P52 had significant internal layout changes compared to P51, based on experience with P51. I have not had the opportunity to experience the P60s yet, but assume the same has been the case, each ship improving over its predecessor. As it was the P60 managed to solve the main weakness of the P50 class, her thirsty engines that do not like loitering.
    Could you see that had we managed to build a P32 the "niggles" would have been improved upon? If we, or anyone managed to build a third vessel in this class the possibilities were unlimited.
    I know already, that all the lessons learnd by Naval crews in all ships to date will be considered when going forward to build the MRV/EPV.

    The fact that P31 serves today, with no reduction in operational capability (apart from the absence of a Helicopter, not the fault of the NS) serves as a monument to all those responsible for her design and construction. While her replacement may be in the planning stages, the ship herself shows no sign of withdrawing from operations, even if most of her crew were not even born when Murph, Laners and co were spending their down time in the rec space under the helideck.
    Bearing in mind the criticisms are with the benefit of hind sight and the fact that so much alteration was carried out after her build lends testament to the inbuilt probably unintended flexibility. The P31 in its built format has almost morphed out of recognition today because of the innovative work based on experience, a second build of the class after a few years of operations would have lead to the ultimate vessel if minds were open to some of the suggestions put forward.


    There was a' Cadets Mess' as originaly built abaft of the Canteen opposite the ratings mess.

    AFIK those accommodation units were aft of a watertight bulkhead.
    Indeed they were.

    even if most of her crew were not even born when Murph, Laners and co were spending their down time in the rec space under the helideck.
    At sea as in under way these areas weren't popular with most people opting fot the more sociable ..and stable mess. The recreation spaces by virtue of their location were subject to more movement with very little ventilation thus often inducing Mal De Mare on some poor souls... the Forward rope stores would do the same thing.

    Rather than continuing being all at sea I will refrain from comment, and regret some of YOUR comments.
    noted.
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 23rd January 2019 at 21:56.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  2. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  3. #2652
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was one small design change made to the Senior Rates recc space before handover from the builders. Due to the small size of the space and when the bar was built it would have been difficult to fit in the beer kegs and coolers. The solution was to locate the kegs and coolers to a fan room on the aft side of the rec space and the beer lines passing trough the bulkhead, the rec space was a watertight compartment so the dockyard fitted cutoff valves in the bulkhead to address the problem . A fine example of cooperation between military and civilians in design adjustment ( it was the Chief ERA's idea ) well done Eddie .
    Last edited by Laners; 23rd January 2019 at 21:51.
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  4. #2653
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    Make no mistake, P31 as delivered was a huge leap in capability from what we had, in terms of machinery, weaponry and sensor fit. Indeed I assume her planning and design would have commenced not long after P20 entered service, so the achievement in that regard is greater still. What those responsible for its design construction and delivery achieved, brought the NS light years ahead of where they were in the mid 70s, with just one Ocean going patrol vessel, and small three coastal patrol minesweepers. Indeed it brought us a long way from any other modern navy in the OPV game, who for the most part were still using a design based on deep sea trawlers. At the time of her launch, only the USCG "Bear" class cutters were comparable, entering service only a few years before P31 was commissioned.

    P31 brought us to an area of naval operations we had never been before, a mere ten years or so after we first started designing and building ships suited for our needs, and not just pressing older unsuited naval vessels into the role. Indeed throughout her service P31 has changed internally to fit a changing role. Compartments have been re-designated, based on use. I believe the Air Corps Pilot cabins have since been re-purposed as a Cadets mess. I'm sure the rec spaces under the helideck came in very useful when the ship was loaded with rescued mediterranean refugees. Ideally located with easy access to the helideck, without having to bring non crew through crew accom spaces.
    The crux of what I read from murphs criticism though is not so much of P31 herself, but of the opportunities lost through the failure to follow up and modify the design based on experience in operation. This was what happened with the P20 class, each ship being an improvement on what came before, and more recently with the P50 class. P52 had significant internal layout changes compared to P51, based on experience with P51. I have not had the opportunity to experience the P60s yet, but assume the same has been the case, each ship improving over its predecessor. As it was the P60 managed to solve the main weakness of the P50 class, her thirsty engines that do not like loitering.
    Could you see that had we managed to build a P32 the "niggles" would have been improved upon? If we, or anyone managed to build a third vessel in this class the possibilities were unlimited.
    I know already, that all the lessons learnd by Naval crews in all ships to date will be considered when going forward to build the MRV/EPV.

    The fact that P31 serves today, with no reduction in operational capability (apart from the absence of a Helicopter, not the fault of the NS) serves as a monument to all those responsible for her design and construction. While her replacement may be in the planning stages, the ship herself shows no sign of withdrawing from operations, even if most of her crew were not even born when Murph, Laners and co were spending their down time in the rec space under the helideck.
    RTE report on ‘Operation Madonna’. Joint Naval Service air corps exercise in 1987. Lots of Dauphin landing and take off footage from P31.

  5. #2654
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    13
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
    Make no mistake, P31 as delivered was a huge leap in capability from what we had, in terms of machinery, weaponry and sensor fit. Indeed I assume her planning and design would have commenced not long after P20 entered service, so the achievement in that regard is greater still. What those responsible for its design construction and delivery achieved, brought the NS light years ahead of where they were in the mid 70s, with just one Ocean going patrol vessel, and small three coastal patrol minesweepers. Indeed it brought us a long way from any other modern navy in the OPV game, who for the most part were still using a design based on deep sea trawlers. At the time of her launch, only the USCG "Bear" class cutters were comparable, entering service only a few years before P31 was commissioned.

    P31 brought us to an area of naval operations we had never been before, a mere ten years or so after we first started designing and building ships suited for our needs, and not just pressing older unsuited naval vessels into the role. Indeed throughout her service P31 has changed internally to fit a changing role. Compartments have been re-designated, based on use. I believe the Air Corps Pilot cabins have since been re-purposed as a Cadets mess. I'm sure the rec spaces under the helideck came in very useful when the ship was loaded with rescued mediterranean refugees. Ideally located with easy access to the helideck, without having to bring non crew through crew accom spaces.
    The crux of what I read from murphs criticism though is not so much of P31 herself, but of the opportunities lost through the failure to follow up and modify the design based on experience in operation. This was what happened with the P20 class, each ship being an improvement on what came before, and more recently with the P50 class. P52 had significant internal layout changes compared to P51, based on experience with P51. I have not had the opportunity to experience the P60s yet, but assume the same has been the case, each ship improving over its predecessor. As it was the P60 managed to solve the main weakness of the P50 class, her thirsty engines that do not like loitering.
    Could you see that had we managed to build a P32 the "niggles" would have been improved upon? If we, or anyone managed to build a third vessel in this class the possibilities were unlimited.
    I know already, that all the lessons learnd by Naval crews in all ships to date will be considered when going forward to build the MRV/EPV.

    The fact that P31 serves today, with no reduction in operational capability (apart from the absence of a Helicopter, not the fault of the NS) serves as a monument to all those responsible for her design and construction. While her replacement may be in the planning stages, the ship herself shows no sign of withdrawing from operations, even if most of her crew were not even born when Murph, Laners and co were spending their down time in the rec space under the helideck.
    RTE report on ‘Operation Madonna’. Joint Naval Service air corps exercise in 1987. Lots of Dauphin landing and take off footage from P31.

    https://www.rte.ie/archives/2017/082...ename-madonna/

  6. Likes DeV, Sarsfield, EUFighter liked this post
  7. #2655
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see a very young DF CoS late in the clip there. Peak activity with the helis there, getting them fully operational. Last time I saw a Dauphin on deck was during the Tall Ships race in 1991.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. #2656
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,049
    Post Thanks / Like

  9. #2657
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Shaqra, ODIN liked this post
  11. #2658
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    The additional maneuvering aid of a stern thruster makes the ship an ideal subject for an integrated joystick control system and PTI will give suitable loading factors for prolonged slow running below 12 knots. I think all of our newer ships have a slow running capability and maybe could be adapted for integrated maneuvering using one thruster, two propellers, and twin rudders as part of the DP system. The nice thing is the AFM is getting most of it for free from the EU.

  12. Likes DeV liked this post
  13. #2659
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,816
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not something you usually see on such a site:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...t-program.html

  14. #2660
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Not something you usually see on such a site:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...t-program.html
    VARD are in attendance at IMEX at Singapore. They are pushing the VARD 713 and VARD 510 and are also showing an on stand video of the Irish Naval Service and it's latest OPV's. The video is available on Facebook . If we were to consider Vard 713 then we must consider adjusting the Basin size, including reopening the drydock 182m X 28.65.

  15. Likes sofa liked this post
  16. #2661
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    VARD are in attendance at IMEX at Singapore. They are pushing the VARD 713 and VARD 510 and are also showing an on stand video of the Irish Naval Service and it's latest OPV's. The video is available on Facebook . If we were to consider Vard 713 then we must consider adjusting the Basin size, including reopening the drydock 182m X 28.65.
    If I could add, at this weekend SeaFest 2019 in Cork, there were 4 vessels alongside the Old Victoria Quay, P52, P64, Maritime Institute Celtic vessel, and a fishing vessel. It brought home to me that the upper City berths would hardly accommodate the current vessels of the INS to give an alongside quay wall berth for each vessel. The harbour needs some redesign to accommodate visiting warships and Cruise Liners in a secure accessible manner.From vessels waiting for berths, in the roads, to haphazard un-designated berths in Cork it seems ships are caught up in a port in transition, with potentionally not enough Berths.

  17. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  18. #2662
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Not something you usually see on such a site:
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...t-program.html
    Pity that photo caption is wrong... thats not Waterford.. and its not pissing rain..so its not the comissioning of the latest vessel
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  19. #2663
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,816
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Pity that photo caption is wrong... thats not Waterford.. and its not pissing rain..so its not the comissioning of the latest vessel
    Oh I know, but really given how surprising it is to even have them mentioned it's not surprising that they went with a stock photo.

  20. #2664
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    That was the Samuel Beckett in Dublin. I was at that.

  21. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  22. #2665
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,401
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    That was the Samuel Beckett in Dublin. I was at that.
    As was I. If they changed "The ceremonial of the commissioning of the new Irish OPV" to "The ceremonial of the commissioning of a new Irish OPV" it could be more accurate.
    There was a visiting Excursion cruise liner "Ocean Endeavour" (137m loa)arriving this morning, swinging at Horgans Quay and i Could see the crew of L.E Niamh paying close attention to the manouver, given their proximity to the swinging basin.
    The proposed redevelopment "should" provide more appropriate berthage for visiting vessels, (3 average size cargo vessels would have berthed there in the past, the longest being 150m however most developers are sea blind, and consider a quayside something to look out your apartment block at, rather than someplace secure for ships to berth safely.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  23. Likes Turkey liked this post
  24. #2666
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    That was the Samuel Beckett in Dublin. I was at that.
    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.

  25. #2667
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,816
    Post Thanks / Like
    In terms of future planning/purchasing, should the NS start looking at trying to join the European Patrol Corvette program? I mean there's now 4 EU nations signed on with interest from two more and one of the options is an OPV variant. France is talking about it's first being built in 2030 so it would fit in with the replacement of the P50 class at that stage?
    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...stomize-ships/

  26. #2668
    Captain EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,608
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of future planning/purchasing, should the NS start looking at trying to join the European Patrol Corvette program? I mean there's now 4 EU nations signed on with interest from two more and one of the options is an OPV variant. France is talking about it's first being built in 2030 so it would fit in with the replacement of the P50 class at that stage?
    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...stomize-ships/
    Just because it is called "European" does not mean it is a trans-EU project. The project is to keep the Italian/French naval grouping together. Before even fixing the requirements they have selected the main contractor; NAVIRIS. This is exactly what the EU needs to get away from when it comes to defence.

    Secondly having each nation customize their vessel is repeating the massive mistakes made with the A400M and NH90 projects. There needs to be one common set of requirements, which can be modular but the vessels need to be as common as possible. Going back to the good old day, the RN reckoned it took 3-4 vessels in a class before a yard was able to efficient produce them. With multiple yards producing multiple variants all compromise by a notion but lack of commonality it will just be an expensive project to stroke some national pride. Being able to spread the design costs over a larger number of common vessels is key to getting costs under control.

    And it is not as if there is not already a design very similar to the vessel already, take the new Finnish corvettes being built. Problem is they are not being built in Italy or France and do not have a lot of systems from either of those countries. Better would be that countries express their needs to a common agency (OCCAR) and that agency then selects the winner that best meets those needs. Otherwise we will continue to have a split inefficient defence industry in the EU.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 17th May 2020 at 14:21.

  27. #2669
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Just because it is called "European" does not mean it is a trans-EU project. The project is to keep the Italian/French naval grouping together. Before even fixing the requirements they have selected the main contractor; NAVIRIS. This is exactly what the EU needs to get away from when it comes to defence.

    Secondly having each nation customize their vessel is repeating the massive mistakes made with the A400M and NH90 projects. There needs to be one common set of requirements, which can be modular but the vessels need to be as common as possible. Going back to the good old day, the RN reckoned it took 3-4 vessels in a class before a yard was able to efficient produce them. With multiple yards producing multiple variants all compromise by a notion but lack of commonality it will just be an expensive project to stroke some national pride. Being able to spread the design costs over a larger number of common vessels is key to getting costs under control.

    And it is not as if there is not already a design very similar to the vessel already, take the new Finnish corvettes being built. Problem is they are not being built in Italy or France and do not have a lot of systems from either of those countries. Better would be that countries express their needs to a common agency (OCCAR) and that agency then selects the winner that best meets those needs. Otherwise we will continue to have a split inefficient defence industry in the EU.
    The grouping of ship building projects in Europe is as you say, a means to control costs , and share developments necessary for technical fit-out. All of our OPV classes are now finished and a 2030 replacement program for P50 class is too far away and would take from the necessary replacement programme for the three 1980's vessels that need consideration at this time. In general a class of ship will have the same hull and general arrangement if they are all built in a short time frame, however longer projects run into generational changes in electronics for radar, communications, and FCS. A radar generation may be as short as 5 years, and ideally you want a common fit for operations and training. Again we shouldn't try to build without using a contracted outside ship design office, to meet installation standards for sensitive electronic equipments. It may be within the aegis of Pesco that we can obtain all the assistance we need for future replacement build, especially MCM and ship air defence.

  28. #2670
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,914
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The grouping of ship building projects in Europe is as you say, a means to control costs , and share developments necessary for technical fit-out. All of our OPV classes are now finished and a 2030 replacement program for P50 class is too far away and would take from the necessary replacement programme for the three 1980's vessels that need consideration at this time. In general a class of ship will have the same hull and general arrangement if they are all built in a short time frame, however longer projects run into generational changes in electronics for radar, communications, and FCS. A radar generation may be as short as 5 years, and ideally you want a common fit for operations and training. Again we shouldn't try to build without using a contracted outside ship design office, to meet installation standards for sensitive electronic equipments. It may be within the aegis of Pesco that we can obtain all the assistance we need for future replacement build, especially MCM and ship air defence.
    Newer generations of naval vessels, even at frigate level, are less armoured now than in previous decades. The concentration is to increase survivability by taking care of vital areas of the ship to allow for functionality up to a direct hit. This can be done by watertight subdivision, protecting vital ship systems by using Kevlar products as recommended, Fire Insulation to give all routes at least a one hour rating, running power and transmission systems on protected trays and not together, run alternate emergency circuits on a different side of the ship to main circuits so that both are not lost together. Protect radar with Kevlar domes, protect operations spaces , and magazines in similar fashion as well as rapid flooding in the latter space.
    An OPV can also be fitted to meet contingencies remembering that if she is to be tasked beyond the capability of a single gun she needs to be up-armed to deal wiith swarm attacks. The critical ingredient is to build in the survival defences either when building or during refits piecemeal. The key would be the gun and a Combat management System to cope with additional armament and tasking and deal with multi-targets.
    Eithne's replacement will have a flight deck, it may be that a helicopter has to stay longer than touch and go, so it might be wise to consider a grid, in-flight refuelling, hot-refuelling, and possibly a starting unit to multi-national standards (NATO). Weaponry for such a ship could include Bofors Mk.4 40mm plus 2 x 30/25mm cannon, decoy rocket system, and an ASM and AAM systems.

  29. Likes Flamingo liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •