Thank you. I knew you wouldn't be far away if I got anything wrong.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OPV Replacement
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostThank you. I knew you wouldn't be far away if I got anything wrong.
If the INS wants to get into rotary ops again they should follow the same joint pathway in ownership and operation. As I said it comes down to the right inter-service attitude to get it right.
If there is a MRV/EPV it really needs to be looked upon as a joint asset with all services playing a part including the IAC as rotary is a huge enabler across a range of employment contexts. In that vein having a flight deck that can manage larger helicopters from other nations adds to the overall capability of the task force - especially in HADR and SASO scenarios in which it is likely to be used alongside those forces. Though the NZDF will never fly something like Chinook the Canterbury's flight deck can at least handle them which add greatly to the utility of the vessel. In the very least it future proofs the vessel for the following 30 years.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostI don't think we should limit ourselves with size in this matter. While yes it would be nice to be able to accomodate a 5 tonne heli on an OPV, I would prefer to go down the RN route, initially with the Castle class, seen again with the Batch 2 River class, having a helideck large enough to accomodate a Sea King, or Merlin size helicopter. It also gives your Lynx/AW159 more room to manouver.
But, looking at the internal layout of the P60 class a conversion like this is unlikely, too much alteration required and we are looking at these vessels in service for at least the next 30 years. Maybe a mid life upgrade could see it.
The priority for now though is to get a P31 replacement built with a usable large helideck so the NS can relearn the skills they had for a short period in the 1980s and 1990s. Safe to say there is nobody currently serving who was involved in Heli ops aboard P31. Maybe the FOCNS, but it depends on how much time he, as an engineering officer spent above deck. We may be reluctant to accept it, but it is probably 18 years since a Dauphin landed on P31. The O/Sea on that day may be a PO or CPO now, given the wastage the NS suffered during the years since, assuming they are still serving and have not retired from the NS. The few FDOs we had have all moved on to better things.
Lets go back to France again, who are now moving towards the NH90 aboard its frigate sized vessels. Lets learn from them. They operate in the same sort of Atlantic as we do. Maybe once we have the skills again, and more importantly we have access to navalised helicopters, maybe then we can look at incorporating a flight deck on an OPV.
Once the vessel type is decided go for the maximum, think big... this was always Eithnes limitations, the ship was built to accept a certain size helo, where it should have been built to accept any size helo, too much space wasted. Biggest helo operational in Europe..( apart from Chinook ) thats what you need to be able to take. the small stuff can come later.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View PostOnce the vessel type is decided go for the maximum, think big... this was always Eithnes limitations, the ship was built to accept a certain size helo, where it should have been built to accept any size helo, too much space wasted. Biggest helo operational in Europe..( apart from Chinook ) thats what you need to be able to take. the small stuff can come later.
If you have an obstruction free deck, and decent stability parameters, any Helo on up to OPV sized decks are welcome. Talking about 11T helos must include their dimensions which are close to 1/4 of the length of a p60 with 55/60ft rotor diameter. As I said all compatible with an MRV which might even land Chinook depending on placement of bridge structure.Last edited by ancientmariner; 22 January 2019, 16:25.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostThe P31 design was based on the biggest sanctioned ship ever agreed to by DoD at almost 85m in length. Naturally the shipbuilder wanted to know the size of helicopter as not alone would it land on, but also was to be handled by a 5 wire winching system with a dual action (IN-OUT) control to take it into the shed and close the door. The shed was to be fitted with a foam flooding system and an X/Y crane for removing engines and blades. It just had to be tailored once the IAC made their choice. Many other helos could land on such as Alouette, Gazelle. Lynx with care, and Seaking crossdeck in emergency.
If you have an obstruction free deck, and decent stability parameters, any Helo on up to OPV sized decks are welcome. Talking about 11T helos must include their dimensions which are close to 1/4 of the length of a p60 with 55/60ft rotor diameter. As I said all compatible with an MRV which might even land Chinook depending on placement of bridge structure.
I haven't been on board any of the above, but I imagine there's a lot more (dry) crew space on the P60's than the Batch 2 Rivers - so crew comfort is possibly quite a lot better?
If there isn't an operational requirement for an 11T, or any other helicopter for that matter, to be deployed on the ships main taskings - I guess the question has to be asked; does it make sense to sacrifice the space?
But it clearly affects the versatility.
Given the 10m stretch the P60's got, the rear deck space appears quite small relative to the stretch and with the big crane, I'm doubtful they could safely operate a UAV the size of the S100 without significant modification.
Comment
-
It just had to be tailored once the IAC made their choice. Many other helos could land on such as Alouette, Gazelle. Lynx with care, and Seaking crossdeck in emergency.
The P31 design was based on the biggest sanctioned ship ever agreed to by DoD at almost 85m in length. Naturally the shipbuilder wanted to know the size of helicopter as not alone would it land on, but also was to be handled by a 5 wire winching system with a dual action (IN-OUT) control to take it into the shed and close the door. The shed was to be fitted with a foam flooding system and an X/Y crane for removing engines and blades. It just had to be tailored once the IAC made their choice.
There was no foresight around potential air ops other than anything smaller than the Dauphin despite the Puma having being proven to be the better option and that those carrying out the Long Range SAR were using a machine twice the size of the Dauphin.
Realistically there was no need for the two recreation spaces below the flight deck and the afterdeck could have been covered over to facilitate a larger rotor disc, all the space on the ward room deck could have been reduced significant to accomodate a larger machine....no one in their right mind was ever going to do anything other than a HIFR with a Seaking on a deck that limited...putting the machine in the water and getting the boat back to the ship would have been a safer option.Again the captains flat and senior officers accomadation was an aditional waste of space that could have either reduced the profile of the ship by one deck r could have been gainfully employed as anything other than the guest suite.
To be a vessel of any real significance the replacement needs to be Absalon sized... at least... hanger age available for a helo with space for Merlin / S92 on deck.
Now whats the point in having one ship helo capable... so..we either pull the two P51s .. change their main engines to something economical and stretch them and give them a flight deck, no hanger required... or sell them off and build a sister ship for Eithnes replacement.
The P61s are fine as are and if the P51 adaptation worked , they could be revisted at some point in the future.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
Yeah I know.. I was there...despite its innovative concept of being the smallest ship of its type being able to hanger and operate its own helo, what was the point?
There was no foresight around potential air ops other than anything smaller than the Dauphin despite the Puma having being proven to be the better option and that those carrying out the Long Range SAR were using a machine twice the size of the Dauphin.
Realistically there was no need for the two recreation spaces below the flight deck and the afterdeck could have been covered over to facilitate a larger rotor disc, all the space on the ward room deck could have been reduced significant to accomodate a larger machine....no one in their right mind was ever going to do anything other than a HIFR with a Seaking on a deck that limited...putting the machine in the water and getting the boat back to the ship would have been a safer option.Again the captains flat and senior officers accomadation was an aditional waste of space that could have either reduced the profile of the ship by one deck r could have been gainfully employed as anything other than the guest suite.
To be a vessel of any real significance the replacement needs to be Absalon sized... at least... hanger age available for a helo with space for Merlin / S92 on deck.
Now whats the point in having one ship helo capable... so..we either pull the two P51s .. change their main engines to something economical and stretch them and give them a flight deck, no hanger required... or sell them off and build a sister ship for Eithnes replacement.
The P61s are fine as are and if the P51 adaptation worked , they could be revisted at some point in the future.
Comment
-
The two rec spaces down aft were a of a waste of space, to far away from the accommodation , very noisy at sea and the senior rates one was too small for the numbers . Better to have them as on the PV,s with dining / rec space combined .Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Laners View PostThe two rec spaces down aft were a of a waste of space, to far away from the accommodation , very noisy at sea and the senior rates one was too small for the numbers . Better to have them as on the PV,s with dining / rec space combined .
The grid center was about 40 ft from the hangar and although designed to land and house a 4.5t helo , the deck could land helicopters up to 8t stability wise.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostRather than continuing being all at sea I will refrain from comment, and regret some of YOUR comments.
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.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostMake 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.
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.
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.
Rather than continuing being all at sea I will refrain from comment, and regret some of YOUR comments.Last edited by hptmurphy; 23 January 2019, 21:56.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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; 23 January 2019, 21:51.Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostMake 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmità View PostMake 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.
- Likes 3
Comment
Comment