This is the question. What's the true requirement? MCDV's have spent most of their time in OPV roles. That being said they have done plenty of route survey, MCM jobs in the past. With AOPS coming online there may be less need for OPVs. A swing into mines might be useful. But that would require an investment outside of the ship in tech and training to do that properly.
I feel like the AOPS are already going to be stretched pretty thin. With only 6 and lots of potential taskings on 3 coasts and abroad, their dance card is looking pretty full already. I also wonder if they'll be sent to do more frigate style work as the CPF's need more and more down time for maintenance. Another OPV that can take some of the load, maybe even patrol in the Gulf, for example, could be of great benefit. The AOPS are amazing, flexible ships, but they're also 7000 tonnes of displacement to push around. That has to be expensive if compared to something in the 2000 tonne range.
My only concern about that would be having 3 different fleets of surface vessels, all more or less performing overlapping duties. From a training and maintenance perspective, it could add complexities and challenges that the RCN doesn't need.
I would like to see something that would use common to fleet machinery systems to make the logistics of supporting the fleet that much easier.
I feel like the AOPS are already going to be stretched pretty thin. With only 6 and lots of potential taskings on 3 coasts and abroad, their dance card is looking pretty full already. I also wonder if they'll be sent to do more frigate style work as the CPF's need more and more down time for maintenance. Another OPV that can take some of the load, maybe even patrol in the Gulf, for example, could be of great benefit. The AOPS are amazing, flexible ships, but they're also 7000 tonnes of displacement to push around. That has to be expensive if compared to something in the 2000 tonne range.
Definitely agree. Same CMS 330 version as the AOPS, maybe even same propulsion set up. If the timing was right, maybe you could also repurpose equipment from the CPF's as they come off line. Fire control, 57mm etc.
That's something I wonder about - the blurring of lines between what most people consider to be naval mines, and weaponized UUVs. How many mines are going to be more akin to floating or submerged loitering munitions than conventional mines? Anti-submarine mines that are essentially torpedoes in waiting have been around for some time, and the USN is continuing to push ahead with programs like Hammerhead...
I would not. As soon as you write requirements that have a specific piece of equipment instead of a specific performance goal you have just created a situation where your solution is obsolete before the ship is built. It still happens particularly with communication systems, cryptography and networks.
There is actually a clause in the AJISS contract that gives incentives if they can find maintenance savings by going towards common equipment (ie during obsolescence replacements), but unless the ships are built at the same time it's difficult for the practical reasons you outlined. We tried doing it for AOPS and JSS but didn't work because the contracts were with different yards, and there was pretty tight limitations with specifying equipment.
I did not know AJISS had that incentive, that's very interesting (adds a note to his AJISS ppt slide...).
Fair enough. In that case, what would be your baseline requirements for a new OPV, with regards to size, compliment, speed, armament, sensor fit etc? I also wonder about your opinion on ISO capacity, hangar and ability to upscale as need demands?
I am a neophyte here in this realm. If we adopt the common to fleet approach, do we not run the risk of single supplier failure, much like the brass valves problem that we encountered?
Oddly enough some mines released by the Iranians and which damaged USN ships was an Ottoman era mine, perhaps from the Dardanelles minefields? Talk about value for money! Two Navy Ships Strike Mines In Persian Gulf, 7 InjuredNo offense was intended. That addendum wasn't directed at you, more for the general audience who might not know much about naval mines in general.
However reading the wiki article, it appears the desire to ice strengthen the design ended up making the design 300 tons heavier and wiped out any growth, so a good lesson that any design have growth potentiel worked in at launching.
No offence taken.No offense was intended. That addendum wasn't directed at you, more for the general audience who might not know much about naval mines in general.
Yes, I understand it was quite the battle to get that sorted. IIRC it cost them a heavier main gun too, but I can't recall if that was a weight issue or a budgetary one due to the cost of the strengthening. I'd sure love to have that hangar though. I think it's worth it even for UAVs. I wonder if you could fit a telescopic hangar to a RIVER?
Here is a good article about how one might go about modifying the River class to do different things. The telescopic hangar is likely a no-go, because it ignores the fact that the Landing Safety Officer (or Landing Deck Officer in the UK) spot is where the hangar would normally go. It also might not be robust enough for a full Cyclone as a Wildcat is a smaller aircraft.
