EPV for naval service

[DeV]

i'm pretty sure that the ministerial talk has moved away from 'EPV' and has been about MRV for a while - theres nothing 'multi-role' about an OPV however many spare bunks you put in it.

if they really are talking about something significantly, or even a bit, smaller than Canterbury then the multi-trole element of the buy is out of the window.

An OPV is inherently multi-role

[DeV]

While I totally get why a design based off an Irish Sea Ro-RO wouldn't be suited for West Coast ops, just what size are they looking for so? I mean if it's to have any meaningful level of sea lift it's not going to be small.

Who said meaningful

[ropebag]

An OPV is inherently multi-role

no it isn't. it can sail places, it can look at stuff and it can point (small) guns at people.

can it move large numbers of people either to or from a place? no. can it move gear? no. can it act as a base for helicopters? no. could you use it as a hospital/casualty recieving ship? no.

quite how many roles do you think sailining around and pointing guns at people entails?

[DeV]

no it isn't. it can sail places, it can look at stuff and it can point (small) guns at people.

can it move large numbers of people either to or from a place? no. can it move gear? no. can it act as a base for helicopters? no. could you use it as a hospital/casualty recieving ship? no.

quite how many roles do you think sailining around and pointing guns at people entails?

Multi role doesn’t mean every role

I think the people rescued from the Med and the proven (limited) resupply capability would say otherwise

[DeV]

Anyway let’s remember what the WP15 said about the MRV:
- will not carry a helo but enabled for helo ops
- have freight carrying capacity

[Herald]

So a Frigate sized OPV then?

[EUFighter]

Not to re-open something discussed many times before but the Danish Absalon Support Ship and the proposed Damen Crossover range fit the description.
5000-6000t multi-role frigates with flexible decks allowing troop transport amongst other roles.

[DeV]

https://www.babcockinternational.com/-/media/Document-Library/What-We-Do/Marine/Equipment-and-Systems/Ship-and-Submarine-Design-and-Build/Arrowhead-120--EN--DIGITAL.ashx?la=en&hash=E25A4219B1442089666D04C6B58BEC0AB5DC5A58

Arrowhead

[Herald]

Arrowhead is a dead duck according to latest reports, where Babcock are bodging it into the Venator concept to arrive at a new spec.
Also, Brexit could play negatively with any British bid..............unless of course H&W could complete it, and NI is in the Island of Ireland Customs area!!

[Sparky42]

Arrowhead is a dead duck according to latest reports, where Babcock are bodging it into the Venator concept to arrive at a new spec.
Also, Brexit could play negatively with any British bid..............unless of course H&W could complete it, and NI is in the Island of Ireland Customs area!!

Well H&W have made noises about building modules for it (and the UK seems keen to spread it around) but depending on how NI gets sorted in Brexit who knows what the general mood towards Dublin will be apart from our position. But yes we have no idea what the joint design is going to be spec as right now and won't know until the selection, and from memory Babcock admitted that the Arrowhead wasn't a mature design when they put it forward (don't think they had completed testing of the design) so may not be the best option. Honestly if all she's going to be is a large OPV, I'd almost wonder would 2 more 60's be the better choice and spend the change left on dealing with the manpower issues, because the rational for the MRV seems to be getting increasingly weak.

[ropebag]

... Honestly if all she's going to be is a large OPV, I'd almost wonder would 2 more 60's be the better choice and spend the change left on dealing with the manpower issues, because the rational for the MRV seems to be getting increasingly weak.

this.

unless she's going to offer radically different capabilities to the P60's i don't see the point - far better to get 2 more P60's and keep the savings in the training, maintainance and log spt pipelines.

you aren't going to get any kind of fighty warship for the money Ireland is looking at spending, so - imv - it should be either a GBFO AOR to support EU/UN ops, or an amphibious logs spt ship for the same. a frigate sized OPV just seems to me to be a) a waste of the opportunity, b) offer nothing over the P60's, and c) like buying a money powered BBQ.

[ancientmariner]

this.

unless she's going to offer radically different capabilities to the P60's i don't see the point - far better to get 2 more P60's and keep the savings in the training, maintainance and log spt pipelines.

you aren't going to get any kind of fighty warship for the money Ireland is looking at spending, so - imv - it should be either a GBFO AOR to support EU/UN ops, or an amphibious logs spt ship for the same. a frigate sized OPV just seems to me to be a) a waste of the opportunity, b) offer nothing over the P60's, and c) like buying a money powered BBQ.

.

Six 80/90 metre OPV's is a satisfactory point to look at Naval Fleet needs and add to or supplement capabilities. MCMV's would be designed to maximise use of modern mine clearance methods including divers and ROV's. The proposed MRV is to provide for Logistic assistance ( green/blue), some fire support, contribution to HADRO worldwide. Looking at glossy brochures is a waste of time as nobody at the moment wants to see the point Or have the technical ability to recognise the point. Having ships overseas for up to 8 months highlights the advantage of having a support vessel available to assist if the need becomes apparent. I'll leave the choices to the Naval Service.

[Anzac]

According to the FOCNS in An Cosantoir Canterbury wouldn’t be suited to Irish West coast ops and is significantly bigger than what they are conceptualising.

A further point is that the Canterbury has averaged only 118 sea days per annum in RNZN service. Twice less sea days than what the original RFI requested. Even though it was the cheapest lowest common denominator selected - 118 sea days is very poor VFM when it offers only amphibious sealift capability that is at least OK and near useless with respect to offshore patrol capabilities within the NZ EEZ / Southern Ocean which was at least half the original RFI brief - hence why few sea days annually.

[na grohmiti]

Our OPVs would be doing double that annually.

[ancientmariner]

A further point is that the Canterbury has averaged only 118 sea days per annum in RNZN service. Twice less sea days than what the original RFI requested. Even though it was the cheapest lowest common denominator selected - 118 sea days is very poor VFM when it offers only amphibious sealift capability that is at least OK and near useless with respect to offshore patrol capabilities within the NZ EEZ / Southern Ocean which was at least half the original RFI brief - hence why few sea days annually.

An absolute illustration of why getting the right hull, with the right operating envelope is critical in oceans adjacent to the polar caps. Ships that in civilian life are loaded to designed draft, going to and from ports of interest, may not suit unloaded Naval use, unless fitted with special ballast tanks, that can be put in or out at sea. The critical factor is to minimise the breadth of the tank(s) possibly to 1 metre so that B cubed will always be 1, when calculating Free surface effect.