Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • On a related note

    In no way suggesting them as suitable for the NS or as a MCM but interesting

    MV Celtic Explorer:
    7 TEUs
    DP1
    Designed to be very quiet
    Cranes
    ROV
    Good standard of Accomodiation
    Aft work area



    ILV Granuaile:
    16 TEUs
    DP1Cranes
    ROV
    Good standard of Accomodiation
    Aft work area
    Heli pad
    40t bollard tow
    Moon pool
    ILV Granuaile is a versatile Class 1 DP vessel with a skilled crew and excellent equipment. It provides a versatile platform for marine activities, and is available for hire!

    Last edited by DeV; 17 May 2020, 11:51.

    Comment


    • As I have said before, there will be a glut of recently built offshore support vessels with DP and work deck aft, some even with helideck on the roof, and cranes that compensate for the movement of the sea beneath.
      NZ just got one as a dive support ship.
      Mine clearance is moving to unmanned small craft. The mother ship just needs space to accomodate them and their systems, and a crane to launch and recover them.
      The solution is in the offshore industry, we just need a coat of paint, and some minor conversions to the deck layout.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • The SB has now been in service for 6 years, each has space for 3 TEU's and each has a 4t crane, so how often have we trialed a containerized MCM system?
        While the crane is too small for a USV it would be capable of launching and recovery of ROVs, and the mission control systems can be housed in a container. It might not be perfect be to do a trial would show the limitations and requirements for such a system.

        No matter that some seem to be going for the mothership concept one thing that differentiates these vessels from an offshore support vessel is that they have mine detection sonars fitted as standard.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          The SB has now been in service for 6 years, each has space for 3 TEU's and each has a 4t crane, so how often have we trialed a containerized MCM system?
          While the crane is too small for a USV it would be capable of launching and recovery of ROVs, and the mission control systems can be housed in a container. It might not be perfect be to do a trial would show the limitations and requirements for such a system.

          No matter that some seem to be going for the mothership concept one thing that differentiates these vessels from an offshore support vessel is that they have mine detection sonars fitted as standard.
          See posts 430 and 592

          NSDS has, not sure about The MCM capability

          The thing is that it is becoming normal for the USV to carry the mine detection sonar not the mothership. It extends the range and keeps the mothership further out of harms way.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            See posts 430 and 592

            NSDS has, not sure about The MCM capability

            The thing is that it is becoming normal for the USV to carry the mine detection sonar not the mothership. It extends the range and keeps the mothership further out of harms way.
            This is why I say we need to deploy a team to a working mothership/minehunter and get an overview of what the professionals are working with and get some info on their wish list. I think the sonar on the Mother ship and that on the AUV are both required for dealing with a mine incident. The ship mounted mine detection sonar works at safer ranges around 1000m and gives data to enable intervention by the AUV. We need to decide are we going to do all detection and mine destruction by remote vehicles or with clearance divers , or indeed both. If you check with IL and I served 8 years part time on the old Granuaile, their vessels are designed for optimal work in lower sea states.

            Comment


            • The is a lot of hype about USV's to do MCM but they are relatively small boats 11-12m and I have never seen any trials in anything but very low sea states (1-2). They are intended to go in once an area is suspected of having being mined. The ability of these small vessels to launch and recover AUV's will also be limited to very low sea states. While the USV's are expensive the AUV's are not only much more expensive but more prone to damage if not handled correctly.

              But let's step back for a minute, where do we intend to do MCM work? Is it the approaches and entrances to a major commercial harbours? If it is then there is an alternative even if most sea dogs will bark at the idea. With a couple of low loaders and a containerized system the work can be done from land. Atlas Electronik demonstrated this to the RN with the mission control system and other support systems in containers and their 11m USV fitting nicely on a low loader. Deploying from land should present fewer problems at the start and once we are sure that such a system wor we can do the next step and take it to sea.

              Not too sure how the DoD will react to the NS requesting a couple of low loaders and PLS trucks.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                The is a lot of hype about USV's to do MCM but they are relatively small boats 11-12m and I have never seen any trials in anything but very low sea states (1-2). They are intended to go in once an area is suspected of having being mined. The ability of these small vessels to launch and recover AUV's will also be limited to very low sea states. While the USV's are expensive the AUV's are not only much more expensive but more prone to damage if not handled correctly.

                But let's step back for a minute, where do we intend to do MCM work? Is it the approaches and entrances to a major commercial harbours? If it is then there is an alternative even if most sea dogs will bark at the idea. With a couple of low loaders and a containerized system the work can be done from land. Atlas Electronik demonstrated this to the RN with the mission control system and other support systems in containers and their 11m USV fitting nicely on a low loader. Deploying from land should present fewer problems at the start and once we are sure that such a system wor we can do the next step and take it to sea.

                Not too sure how the DoD will react to the NS requesting a couple of low loaders and PLS trucks.
                I would tend to agree but Government policy is 2 vessels capable of MCM/CIED that’s where this came from

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  I would tend to agree but Government policy is 2 vessels capable of MCM/CIED that’s where this came from
                  I know what was in WP15, but it does not mean it cannot be changed. Technology changes and things develop, today we could have a land based MCM system than was maybe not at the level of maturity in 2014/15 to have been considered. Even if written in stone a chisel can soon change that! Government policy is based upon advise it gets, so if someone was to make the proposal then maybe the policy would change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    I know what was in WP15, but it does not mean it cannot be changed. Technology changes and things develop, today we could have a land based MCM system than was maybe not at the level of maturity in 2014/15 to have been considered. Even if written in stone a chisel can soon change that! Government policy is based upon advise it gets, so if someone was to make the proposal then maybe the policy would change.
                    The modern digital manufacturers and the part in particular that interfaces with commercial and Naval maritime worlds are coming up with all kinds of options to do things remotely and at a distance. It varies from paperless ships, to ships without crews from a punt to large oilers, bulkers, and container ships. MCM depending on type of mine is a slow methodical process requiring at times many years to clear a waterway. There must be a reason that a wish to rebuild a MCM ability is emerging in most maritime choke areas from Europe, USA, Middle east, and Asia.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      The modern digital manufacturers and the part in particular that interfaces with commercial and Naval maritime worlds are coming up with all kinds of options to do things remotely and at a distance. It varies from paperless ships, to ships without crews from a punt to large oilers, bulkers, and container ships. MCM depending on type of mine is a slow methodical process requiring at times many years to clear a waterway. There must be a reason that a wish to rebuild a MCM ability is emerging in most maritime choke areas from Europe, USA, Middle east, and Asia.
                      The Atlas Electronix system would be useful port based, as it could pass over a channel/entry before ships enter or leave to deal with a magnetic type mine by giving it a large ship magnetic pulse to detonate it. "More complex problems" would have to be dealt with by conventional methods. Most magnetic mines have ship magnetic signatures and counters installed. If a convoy is leaving port it might ignore the first few ships such as escorts, pilot boats, tugs, then take out the fourth ship blocking the channel for both directions, closing the port. Larger approach waterways like in the GULF are taking sometime to clear with 4 RN minehunters. I would avoid miracle cures costing £13m as it cannot be enough to provide a total answer to all of the MCM problem

                      Comment


                      • The greatest risk we face, according to the experts in the Naval Service, is an attack on the undersea cables that link Europe, via us, to North america.
                        We need to have the means to monitor these, and the means to do so are similar to that found on a vessel used for mine clearance.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                          The greatest risk we face, according to the experts in the Naval Service, is an attack on the undersea cables that link Europe, via us, to North america.
                          We need to have the means to monitor these, and the means to do so are similar to that found on a vessel used for mine clearance.
                          As in sonar?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            The Atlas Electronix system would be useful port based, as it could pass over a channel/entry before ships enter or leave to deal with a magnetic type mine by giving it a large ship magnetic pulse to detonate it. "More complex problems" would have to be dealt with by conventional methods. Most magnetic mines have ship magnetic signatures and counters installed. If a convoy is leaving port it might ignore the first few ships such as escorts, pilot boats, tugs, then take out the fourth ship blocking the channel for both directions, closing the port. Larger approach waterways like in the GULF are taking sometime to clear with 4 RN minehunters. I would avoid miracle cures costing £13m as it cannot be enough to provide a total answer to all of the MCM problem
                            In the main the risks would be in the estuaries and/or entrances to the main ports but also the major shipping lanes off Ireland.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              As in sonar?
                              ROV, USV, dive support, DP in challenging sea conditions etc.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • I would agree about undersea cables, even if they do not come on land here a quick look at any chart for the Celtic Sea will show the mass of cables coming from the UK (Europe) and passing through out EEZ. Then we have the interconnectors, which will soon be joined by a new super interconnector to France. But as with most thing under the surface no-one seems to care.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X