Something like this?Timmymagic wrote:Or at most a navalised CT40. At least then we could get some savings from commonality.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ystem.html
Something like this?Timmymagic wrote:Or at most a navalised CT40. At least then we could get some savings from commonality.
It would be a big step up from the 30mm but it's max range is only 4km. The 57mm and 76mm both have a similar max range of 15 km to 16km and about 8km effective range with standard ammo.Caribbean wrote:Something like this?Timmymagic wrote:Or at most a navalised CT40. At least then we could get some savings from commonality.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ystem.html
I was more concerned about losing the crew but I fully agree with your pointTempest414 wrote: loosing a £150 million ship for a few million mad
I don't think that is true. The RN pretty much destroyed the Iraq navy by its self, with some US assistance, and the RN maintain a very similar capability to that today. When sea venom the RN will be well equipped to deal with coastal navy speeding around in missile boats.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Many. Anyway, RN fleet it not optimized to fight against Iran. If so, the ASW must be much more focussed on shallow water, mine laying must not be abandoned, and more corvettes rather than frigates will be needed.
That's a reasonable point, it will then be another mission bay, so perhaps it makes sense for it to be built compatible with the T26?donald_of_tokyo wrote:For this, I think it is very important to come to an idea how to use those hangar if there is no helicopter carried = which I guess 90% of the case.
On paper this looks like a particularly nice idea, especially if it is an effective CIWS. It shouldn't be adopted as a bespoke gun for the MCM vessels, but if it becomes the standard small gun across the fleet then it should also feature on the MCM vessels.Timmymagic wrote:Or at most a navalised CT40. At least then we could get some savings from commonality.
Has anything like that ever happened before?Tempest414 wrote:just because you can not see a scenario dose not mean it can't happen as said loosing a £150 million ship for a few million mad
Were we still in a world where the USA could be absolutely relied on to step up in the event of of an incident like that, I would agree. Unfortunately various statements and actions at the highest level in the USA, might be misunderstood and lead others to calculate that they could "take on" assets belonging to NATO countries that they see as weaker, but where the propaganda value derived would be significant. At the moment, I think that is unlikely for them, but no longer "impossible to contemplate". Let's hope that future statements and actions push that line of thinking firmly back into "impossible to contemplate" territory, rather than allowing it to creep further into "potential course of action" thinking.shark bait wrote:States don't have a habit of going round popping off missiles at NATO ships, they may like provoking, but they are not stupid and know sinking a ship would be suicide.
Agreed, and as such, constant attention should be paid to the capabilities of minor warship defensive capabilities, whether that means basic AAW capabilities (vs helicopters and particularly drones) or improved anti-surface/ anti-swimmer defenses.shark bait wrote:The bigger problem is hybrid action, where the state can hide behind plausible deniability.
Personally, when I look at the RB2's I just see a missed opportunity. In my opinion the 100m, 3000t VT concept was closer to were RN's second batch of OPV's should have ended up. With the addition of a hanger between the funnels, the covered working deck under the flight deck and the large crane located on the stern, the RN OPV's could have been truly multipurpose vessels.donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is because River B2 looks so capable, that we start thinking of adding a hangar.
If the crane is located on the stern it would be simple enough to move equipment or ISO's up to flight deck and into the hanger if necessary. Looking at the design below it offers a multitude of options for Patrol, MHC and HADR deployments.donald_of_tokyo wrote:For this, I think it is very important to come to an idea how to use those hangar if there is no helicopter carried = which I guess 90% of the case.......If it is 15m long and 5 m wide, can we carry upto 4 ISO containers within for HADR operations? Then, a simple rail-platform/forklift to handle containers will be important.
The Canadian variant of this Vard design, HMCS Harry DeWolf has lots of room for multiple LCVP's and bulky off board systems as the covered working deck is two decks high. The 20t crane on the stern would be extremely useful for mcm and HADR deployments.donald_of_tokyo wrote:How about carrying a light LCVP in it......Then, a rail-based davit to pull it out to the flight deck and a 15 t crane to handle it will be important.
If that's true then it's an amazing bargain at that priceshark bait wrote:The cost to build the polar ship is £150m, the £200m figure includes extra projects.
The ships will be bigger and systems deployed from them will be capable so as a package they will be bigger and more capable than the current MCMsshark bait wrote:I think they will be less capable.
That generally the point of current developments, isolating the mission systems from the platform, so the platform can become basic and cheap.
The current mine-hunters are highly capable, with specialist hulls and sonars. I don't expect the next generation to have any of that, it wont be a capable platform, instead it will get all capability from the payload.
"Missing opportunity" you feel is because it is large. And, you are proposing to make it more larger. Surely it will mean less number. This is what I meant.Poiuytrewq wrote:Personally, when I look at the RB2's I just see a missed opportunity.donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is because River B2 looks so capable, that we start thinking of adding a hangar.
I'm sure bigger as you go, surely less number you will see. But, if the size can beat the less number, then yes it is the way to go, I agree. See French navy.Should the MH(P)C programme be thinking BIGGER? Are all patrol vessels simply going to get bigger?
I don't agree with this, if the RB2s were built as standard cost then yes your premise could hold true higher cost lower numbers, but they weren't they were built under toba at highly inflated costs to meat the contractual requirements. A lot more could of been got for the same money or even an additional RB2. The problem in this case wasn't money it was time. The RB2 had to be rushed in to production to fill the gap so there was no time to do an addiquate redesign. ( this is where it's an opertunity missed )donald_of_tokyo wrote:"Missing opportunity" you feel is because it is large. And, you are proposing to make it more larger. Surely it will mean less number. This is what I meant.Poiuytrewq wrote:Personally, when I look at the RB2's I just see a missed opportunity.donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is because River B2 looks so capable, that we start thinking of adding a hangar.
Couldn't agree with you more there, I do think there needs to be an increase in over all EEZ vessels both for the RN and ukbf with us leaving the EUdonald_of_tokyo wrote:Partly agree. It should have been something more capable, only if there was a time for designing, say 1year notice. HMG and navy indecision made it happen.
Even if the first 3 hull can be “a surprise”, how about the hull 4 and 5?
Another indecision made another opportunity lost.
If RN foresee it going to happen, they should have modified the design to get a hangar, with redesigning the funnel and after. When it was decided right at the time of ordering the 1st three hulls, it must have been easy.
Three simple EEZ OPV and two OPV with Wildcat hangar should have been a much better balance, I think.
Note I think 3 OPV without hangar is right way to go. No need. But, surely 5 is too much.
Exactly, it was a simple quick fix due to financial considerations.Jake1992 wrote:A lot more could of been got for the same money or even an additional RB2. The problem in this case wasn't money it was time. The RB2 had to be rushed in to production....
Not quite perfect in my view for EEZ patrol, 58 crew is a lot when compared to 30 in the RB1 and why would you need accommodation for 50 Marines in the EEZ? But I agree, although expensive to build and crew, they will suit EEZ patrol very well.donald_of_tokyo wrote:River B2 is good at their task, EEZ patrol. Perfect solution.
You may be right but I think the high CoG issue could have been resolved, probably a 5m or 6m stretch would have helped a lot. It would have produced a much more useful vessel for Global deployment.donald_of_tokyo wrote: On the old VT River B2 like OPV design, I think it is too top heavy, and current design is "better" and the original one is "bad".
If mcm equipment is going to continue to increase in size I think the two roles will have to split. Even the Venari 85 is starting to look small now.donald_of_tokyo wrote: On the latter examples, they enjoy fat and bulky hull. This is why I think MHC is better than MHPC, because the speed requirement is lowered, such a fat hull is enabled.
Was the RB2 purely designed for EEZ patrol? It's the Multipurpose globally deployable designs that are a generation ahead.donald_of_tokyo wrote: And I do not agree your proposal of "generation". They are just different. The most modern EEZ patrol ship will be very similar to River B2 itself.
This would have been a very good outcome and although not perfect it would have been much better than where we are now. The fact that a hanger was not added to 4 and 5 is astonishing.donald_of_tokyo wrote: Three simple EEZ OPV and two OPV with Wildcat hangar should have been a much better balance, I think.
Refusing to face the fact that T26 is to be delayed, this is the point of HMG and RN's irresponsible attitude. They just stop thinking, waiting for some miracle to happen, and failed. If HMG/RN decided to shft to 8 T26 + 5 T31e program already on 2014, the ~650M GBP spent on River B2 should have been added to the 1.25B GBP T31e program cost, making it 1.9B GBP.Jake1992 wrote:I don't agree with this, if the RB2s were built as standard cost then yes your premise could hold true higher cost lower numbers, but they weren't they were built under toba at highly inflated costs to meat the contractual requirements. A lot more could of been got for the same money or even an additional RB2. The problem in this case wasn't money it was time. The RB2 had to be rushed in to production to fill the gap so there was no time to do an addiquate redesign. ( this is where it's an opertunity missed )
The fact is, River B2 will go to sea with 36 crew, +6 compared to River B1. "58" is the over all crew in rotation, to keep the sea going days as high as 320 days/year. This was clearly written in Navy News.Poiuytrewq wrote:Not quite perfect in my view for EEZ patrol, 58 crew is a lot when compared to 30 in the RB1 and why would you need accommodation for 50 Marines in the EEZ? But I agree, although expensive to build and crew, they will suit EEZ patrol very well.donald_of_tokyo wrote:River B2 is good at their task, EEZ patrol. Perfect solution.
You wrote my answer. River B2 is at the highest end of EEZ patrol vessel. But, it turned out to be tasked for "multipurpose globally deployment". Clearly, these two are different vessel, no relation to "generation". Frigate is not "a generation ahead" of OPV. Similary, "EEZ patrol vessel" is different from "muti-purpose patrol vessel". The latter is larger = more crew and fuel, many assets (cranes and wirings) which increases design, build and operation cost. All these additional assets is "BAD" for EEZ patrol, because it directly means less hull number, less sea going days = less efficiency for patrol.Was the RB2 purely designed for EEZ patrol? It's the Multipurpose globally deployable designs that are a generation ahead.