How Much is an Ulstein PX 121 X Bow

A number of people have proposed using a modern offshore platform supply vessel such as the Ulstein X Bow PX 121 as the base platform for so called low end maritime patrol or security vessels.

The Ulstein PX 121 is one example amongst many but interesting to read the latest contract news.

RHI Secures Order for Two PSVs

Read more about the Ulstein PX 121 below, or click here for the datasheet

[browser-shot width=”600″ url=”http://www.ulstein.com/Kunder/ulstein/cms66.nsf/pages/DESIGNSOLUTIONSOFFSHORESUPPORTVESSELS.html”]

The answer to the question.

$28.5 million or just under £17.5 million

Food for thought

54 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Repulse
December 29, 2013 10:16 pm

Sorry, still prefer the BMT Venator, L’Adroit or BAE OPV designs…

Having said that, like the size of the cargo deck. How about using it as a basis for a RM forward platform… Put a flight deck on top (big enough for a Chinook) and split the cargo deck between accommodation and stores, and the other half as a mission bay (with side doors and rear ramp). A couple of CB90s in the back with a few Vikings, Bobs your uncle…

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
December 29, 2013 10:17 pm

my favourite is still the Ulstein SX119:

http://www.ulsteingroup.com/kunder/ulstein/mm.nsf/lupGraphics/SX119.pdf/$file/SX119.pdf

should meet Repulse’s needs…

as
as
December 29, 2013 10:34 pm

How long has RFA Diligence got before it needs replacing?
This does look like a good replacement.

Mark
Mark
December 29, 2013 10:35 pm

This one ain’t bad either seven viking

Repulse
December 29, 2013 10:38 pm

@Jedi: Agreed, still see it as a possible Bay / Argus / Albion replacement rather than a patrol ship… how would of thought it’s been over 2 years since the original SIMMs debate when we were looking at TDs shipbucket ideas…

Jules
Jules
December 30, 2013 5:56 am

Just imagine that SX119, TD, sat in a bay defending a landing with two Phalanx or MSI Seahawk Sigma, and a rear deck full of Containers containing Chemring Centurions, Phwooaarr!
CEC and a type 45 Fantasy Fleet alert!

Martin
Editor
December 30, 2013 6:11 am

while I’m not in favour of getting rid of frigates to buy these low end vessels as I think we lack enough high end vessels as it is, I see a real opportunity to use a commercial design like these to fulfil the MHPC role. By commercial design I don’t mean a Gucci military inspired X bow design but just going out and buying eight of these and painting them Gray . slap on a couple of mounts for GPMG and maybe two of the automated Bushmaster turrets with the LMM mount attached and bobs you uncle. Maybe fit a better radar that could be used for sea ceptor and buy a couple of palatines sea Ceptor launchers to put on vessels operating in higher threat environments. at just £ 17.5 million a pop it should leave us with a fair bit of cash to spend on the MCM modules and Hydrographic ones too. I’m guessing the oil and gas industry can supply all the modules for everything other than the MCM tasks anyway. also make sure it has a helicopter pad with a helo and it can perform most peace time roles of a frigate. Don’t bother following the USN lead of building Gucci weapons modules or ASW. these are jobs for the helicopter or a frigate. At £ 17.5 million a pop we could probably afford to buy a decent amount over the 8 required. if its cheaper we might even consider using the RFA to sail these things with the navy personal and marines specialising in the mission modules.

Martin
Editor
December 30, 2013 6:18 am

@ JEDI – interesting to note SX119 come with helicopter hanger and a well deck and is also available in an ice strengthened hull. so could also be used as a replacement for ice patrol ship. Indeed looks perfect to replace all of the RN’s minor war tasks. any idea about the cost and does it come in grey?

Martin
Editor
December 30, 2013 6:30 am

The SX 121 defiantly coms in grey and looks pretty much good to go for MHPC task

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/ulstein/ulstein5.html

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
December 30, 2013 8:40 am

i think we guessed at about £65m for the basic hull and machinery, plus maybe another £15m of bespoke kit.

yes, i like it because it appears to have everything we could want!

Repulse
December 30, 2013 8:55 am

I could also see the SX 121 being a Ice Patrol ship replacement also. The reason why I do not like these for the MHPC, is that we dwindling Frigate numbers, I see these ships actually filling the gap where in a “hot” war the platforms could be upgraded to become light warships (like the Flower Class in WW2). Therefore, basing the design on the BAE OPV or Venator with “fitted for but not with” options gets my vote. I know it would probably be double the £65m being quoted, but there isn’t the available crew to man more ships anyway and cannot see that changing with pressures to man the 2nd CVF.

Neil
Neil
December 30, 2013 9:09 am

If only it was this simple…….

Anxitu
Anxitu
December 30, 2013 9:29 am

Martin,

“interesting to note SX119 come with helicopter hanger and a well deck ”

Any evidence for this other than your interpretation of an inclusive CGI image in a PDF brochure?

(See my comment at 0948 20MAR12 on the Skandi Bergen post, a little later than your last comment on that one)

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
December 30, 2013 10:08 am

admittedly not. :)

Anixtu
Anixtu
December 30, 2013 10:42 am

I seem to have suffered a serious typo affliction on my last comment. My handle should have been correctly spelled and “inclusive” should have been “inconclusive”.

Repulse
December 30, 2013 10:57 am

@Neil: I actually believe it is possible. Think of an upgradeable integrated mast and space for a containerised VLS. As long as it has a decent gun (76mm+), speed (25kts+), range (5,000nm+), close ranged weapons (a couple of SIGMA mounts) and a retractable hanger (with a UAV dog house) then I think we would have an affordable core platform which could be upgraded to a basic (no frills) “warship”.

dave haine
dave haine
December 30, 2013 11:31 am

Hmm…
A couple of these sx119 to replace Diligent and Argus…maybe a couple to act as motherships for RM tasks, or light forces, mine-hunting, etc…Maybe a couple for Ice Patrol and FIGS… Thats 6… Should relieve the pressure on the escorts and ‘Bays’. A nice sized fleet big enough to maintain economically, and be flexible enough to re-role as and when needed.

(And of course, probably a greater re-sale value than a frigate design)

Mark
Mark
December 30, 2013 12:07 pm

The ulstien seven viking which i linked the video above is equipped much more along the lines of what modular deployed diligence/mcm type ships would look like without the guns its brand new but much more expensive than the bare bones one. As ever it’s the systems carried not the hull that costs the money these day.

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/seven-viking/

“The naming ceremony for the vessel was held in January 2013 after it cleared sea trials, which commenced in November 2012. She was earlier launched in October 2012 from the dock hall at Ulstein Verft where she was constructed. The cost of construction of the vessel was about NOK 1bn ($181m).”

Jules
Jules
December 30, 2013 12:35 pm

To be honest I could see a role for six of each (SX119/121)! (A couple of these sx119 to replace Diligent and Argus…maybe a couple to act as motherships for RM tasks, or light forces, mine-hunting, etc…Maybe a couple for Ice Patrol and FIGS…)
With a dock and a large rear deck the 121 could be configured for just about anything and the 119 could share the tasks being fitted for just one aspect of the above, they could work alone or in pairs as required, if they make all the kit/personell to run it Air transportable in an A400 we could be laughing, it would be the most adaptable second tier navy there is!
If we stilll have 1.4 billion to play with for MHPC, I’d double it by losing three Frigates (I know I know!) but the remaining ten would all have towed arrays and fitted with not for…
No 76mm, in fact no deck penetrating gubbins, give it a reasonable radar and missiles/guns like the chemring/ sigma or anything else they can bung in an ISO container to throw at the bad guys. I wonder how far 2.8-3 billion would get us on this, I really do think it’s the way forward for the second tier.
You would lose the MCM Fleet and the Argus/Dilligent, so that should be enough Matelots, we might even get a bit of cash for that lot, in fact I’d bring it forward in front of the GCS because I frankly don’t see antone else buying it but us?

Ian Williams
Ian Williams
December 30, 2013 1:27 pm

In what ways and to what degree might SX119/121 be used to fulfill the Black Swan vision?

Jules
Jules
December 30, 2013 3:58 pm

You could likely do with one SX119 and one SX121 the task of three or four Black Swans, larger could have the better aviation facilities allowing for lillypadding during ops from one to the other, docking facility for CTRUKS etc, carry two merlins or three Lynx between them (By the way I’d dump the Lynx to the Army and give em all to the navy and start the ball rolling for the AW 149 to the Army and to the RAF too when the Puma’s give up…). There’s a lot of possibilities here…

WiseApe
December 30, 2013 6:31 pm

It’s not fair. Here’s me back at work while you’re all playing fantasy fleets!

“A number of people have proposed using a modern offshore platform supply vessel such as the Ulstein X Bow PX 121 as the base platform for so called low end maritime patrol or security vessels.” – Slap them. Hard.

There’s no money being provided for new ships, just for new equipment to put onto existing ships. Would be lovely to have some of these, but where’s the money coming from? I was looking at the posts TD has put up about public sector expenses. So, why not make all public sector employees pay for their own meals? (I am a public sector employee; my lunch today cost exactly £1 – which came out of my own pocket). Such a scheme could pay for my fantasy cruisers, never mind these “floaty little boats.” :-)

Rocket Banana
December 30, 2013 6:39 pm

TD,

I’d use this ship to carry the causeway you mentioned in a recent post or just a load of mexes and a crane.

Then perhaps it simply represents a pretty good logistics vessel for a semi-amphibious landing.

Alternatively it could form the basis of a disaster relief ship with associated hangar, copter and medical facilities.

Mike Wheatley
Mike Wheatley
December 30, 2013 6:45 pm

@ Repulse,
The problem I have with using a BAE OPV or Ventor is the example provided by the Type-21 Amazon class frigates. They seemed like very good value for money, but when it came time for their mid-life refit, they were too small to be able to carry the desired new equipment. As a result, they were paid off early.
So whilst they had a low initial capital cost, a fair evaluation of their cost would spread that cost across half the normal lifetime, I.e. the capital cost is twice what it appears to be.
Which is why my two favourite options are:
– the x-bow, with its huge volume.
– a maximally de-fitted Type-26 global combat ship. (No gas turbine, cheap radar, no towed array, cheap gun, no strike length VLS, etc.)
… because, in either case, we could buy them with the assurance that there is lots of room to add equipment throughout their life.

Mike Wheatley
Mike Wheatley
December 30, 2013 7:26 pm

@ TD
“Take this hull for £17.5m and an optional extras tab of say, another £20m”

– Artisan 3D radar (to provide the awareness that backs up the mother ship role)
– 3 sets of sigma gun mounts (enough for maritime security)
– some standard ships boats (maritime security)
– some decent fire control optics
– a nice big hangar and flight deck (UAV mother ship role) as big as I can get it.

Can I get that for £20m?
Does that budget also need to include a civilian S&R helicopter and/or UAVs? I doubt the air vehicles will fit in the budget…

More to the point, what is that going to do to the manning requirements? Help please!

Mark
Mark
December 30, 2013 7:40 pm

“How would you turn it into something useful for maritime security type roles, disaster relief, training and unmanned craft mothership.”

I’d make it like the seven viking and add 3 x 30mm sigma mounts and the scanter radar.

Repulse
December 30, 2013 8:41 pm

@ TD:

“Take this hull for £17.5m and an optional extras tab of say, another £20m”

Okay, paint bloody big Union Jacks on each side and the fit a £19,999,980 cocktail bar :)

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
December 30, 2013 8:59 pm

Internally.

Military Comms to include secure voice and data plus link 11.
Scanter radar fitted as per Clyde and E/F and I band radars for Navigation.
6 Consoles to allow control of remote weapons mounts and build air/surface picture plus command console.
A look at the CBRNDC fit and at least fitting of military DC stations/lockers.
Examination of how easy it would be to install a citadel/further watertight boundaries.
Magazine spaces to be incorporated, integrated internally and an air wepaons mag.

Externally
2/3 of deck aft converted to flight deck and hangar space for up to a wildcat.
last 3rd plumbed for power and water, allowing containers of various configurations to be mounted.
Crane fitted aft to allow containers to be loaded/unloaded.
3 Seahawk sigma mounts for self defence.
Provision for GPMG/50 cal to be mounted on superstructure for increased force protection.
Ensure the davits in place can cope with Pac 24 sized RHIBS.
Ensure Crane aft is certified for boat ops and that instead of containers larger craft can be launched and recovered aft.

Repulse
December 30, 2013 9:10 pm

@MikeW: I think that a 2,000t ship for MHPC / light Frigate duties is large enough. I want speed over size.

Repulse
December 30, 2013 9:59 pm

One more serious thought on the potential use of this platform would be to use it as a AEW blimp mothership / tug. Perhaps add a couple of Phalanx on each side of the bridge. A couple would make a good addition to the RFTG…

Jed
Jed
December 30, 2013 11:38 pm

Just tack on an order for six to what ever the USCG buys……. One of which has an Ulstein Xbow:
http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/09/19/unconventional-contender-for-the-offshore-patrol-cutter/

Link courtesy of Chucks Coast Guard blog.

Instead we will get 3 River derivatives to keep votes in Pompey :-(

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
December 31, 2013 12:01 am

@TD

Not really certain how much the proposals I laid out would cost but if it was 6 for 1 then yes. Manpower costs would be higher though as would through life costs.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
December 31, 2013 12:16 am

@TD

Would have to look at exact capabilities and tasking to decide what it could do before i decided.

To make them effective you are going to need Charge Engineers, Command Qualified Cos, Navigators, Flight Crew etc all expensive courses that need more people through them than a single T26.

Mercator
Mercator
December 31, 2013 1:41 am

It’s gone a little bit beyond the concept stage in Australia (as I think you’ve noted before):

http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/SouthernOceanPatrolVesselACVOceanProtectorFactSheet.pdf

Not quite as ambitious as some of the suggestions here, but still…

Also the distinction between military and security tasks is interesting. It seems to me that sometimes the military take on security tasks that don’t really require military personnel and assets, perhaps with the view that they can do these tasks in peace time as a sort of make-work scheme. With fewer military vessels (and aircraft) available and a tight budget, perhaps it’s time that some of these activities got de-linked from the military so that savings can be made with civilian crews and vessels.

Jules
Jules
December 31, 2013 4:40 am

Bin four Minesweepers and have the Marines man the pointy sticks? Have them do Fire Control too? Sweeper crew are used to throwing things off the back and recovering it, binning four sweepers would negate the thru life running costs, keep doing it that way until all the sweepers are gone, replace the 15-16 of them with 24 ulsteins, or as I’d prefer replace the sweepers with a mix of smaller and larger ulsteins and bin Dilligence and Argus into the bargain.
Leave the Hydro Squadron as it is, those two and a half ships could soldier on for years and it’s less kit to buy and have to move around. Have the big uns with the strengthened Bow and Bin Scott too if you like, should free up plenty of Manning that way, I have no idea How many Sailors that would be between Scott, Argus,Dilligence and the MCM fleet but I reckon it’s more than enough…
They already do a Diving support version, we may even be able to just buy one thats already out there, for that and how different is a Rig support vessel from a Submarine Tender Really?
It needs to be able to shove Torps and other pointy Sticks in the Sub and what else???

Mix it up, an eventual buy of eight big uns and 16 little uns, adaptability is the key here, the eight big uns get proper hangers and a dock, for motherships for MCM/ASW/Area Stabilistion tasks (Pirate hunting etc.) Little uns get Air portable, containerised Hanger facility and enough room at rear for a few containers for MCM kit and launching and retreiving uuv/uav, it all seems soo simple…
He He…
As I said before for more complex tasks they work in pairs or even three’s one big and one to two small, an ad hoc Sqn if you will…
To keep Repulse happy, I’d eventually get six OPV’s not three, at the cost of two-three type 26’s and I’d make em Khareef’s, as I notice even on the BAE site it’s being referred to as a 90M OPV now and a Corvette on the same page but which is it? Which is best??? FIIGHHHTTT!!!
They could play alongside the Ulsteins in more hostile enviroments and go off and chase things on their own when required, they managed to build three Khareefs for 400,000,0000 and to be honest I simply cannot see a type 26 costing any less than 500,000,000, bin two for the build/operating costs of the OPV’s and to up spec the remaining 11 T26 and six T45.
The Ulstiens, I would imagine will not be built in the UK? The six OPV’s would help appease the Unions too, As we need the Sovreign build for the Pointy Sticks…
Seventeen Class one fighting Ships and seven Nuclear Subs is enough to escort Two CVF’s
Well thats the Navy sorted, anything else before breakfast???
He He…
I reckon I’d still give the navy all the Lynx/Wildcat, if you went somewhere reasonably hostile, with the bigger Ulstein, you could even bung on an Apache, they need to keep the rotors turning at Yeovil ad just buying ten AW189’s for ASR is not enough, they need to get into the AW149 at the same time and replace the Army Wildcats with a chopper that can handle more than six blokes!

Martin
Editor
December 31, 2013 8:03 am

@ TD – I would say that given the tasks of mine counter measures and hydrographic survey are very similar to the tasks performed in oil and gas exploration that we should be able to just take over one of these vessels with almost zero modification. A well deck, moon pull, open work deck and carnies for launch and recovery and lots of space for containers. Simply mounting some weaponry should not be expensive nor as with APATS suggestion fitting a half decent radar should not cost too much either. I can’t see why you could not operate sea fox off of this today. It should be seen as a UUV carrier with basic self protection weaponry and space for a helicopter that can perform EEZ and anti piracy type roles but not soemthing designed to operate in a shooting war with out escorts.

IanW
IanW
December 31, 2013 8:30 am

It seems to me that Julian is looking in the right direction, and that we’re extending Lewis Page & Black Swan territory.

Assume we’re a regional power with a need for a significant, fighty naval capacity in the Atlantic and Med, plus the ability to go to the left side of the Indian Ocean as required; and that this capacity is centred around one carrier battle group normally and two if the shit hits. Work out the high-end end destroyer and frigate requirement to support this strategy, including contingency for attrition. Add in the fleet auxiliary needed to support it. For anything else – mine protection, low intensity patrol, human and material cargo – buy cheap, cheerful and flexible, with the capacity for hi-tech as needed.

The debate is around: is the opening assumption correct; can we afford it with money left over for the rest; do we have sufficient high end planned to implement it; and – pertinent to this discussion – is there room to exchange some high end for low end; can we usefully adapt commercial vessels to meet the low-end requirement; if so, what kind of vessel and adaptation?

Repulse
December 31, 2013 8:37 am

@TD: I think 6 of these to replace the current UK Customs & Excise vessels plus HMS Endurance is not a bad idea. Though as I say an additional 3 to act as AEW Blimp motherships to work with the RFTG is not too far from the relms of reality either.

As I’ve stated many times, I would trade reduced numbers of T26 (or cancel it altogether for another 6 T45) for a higher number of more capable minor warships. Though I do agree with APATs it seems that the real issue is manning versus whether a vessel is 50mn or 100mn when spread over 30 years. Therefore, i cannot see the total number of RN manned minor warships to be able to increase beyond about 30 (assuming a drop of 5-7 FFs) in the foreseeable future.

Joint RN / RFA manning is an option, but I think the RFA is going to be stretched also. Perhaps an alternative would be having true Purple teams, e.g. the RAF remotely operating UAVs.

Repulse
December 31, 2013 9:01 am

: Agree with your summary. The “Hard Core” should be the RFTG along with (more) SSNs, we may also need some more DDs/FFs for EEZ defence, but this is where in my view more effort should be made to combine RN & RAF capabilities into a more coherent plan (e.g. MPA and Tiffys with anti-ship missiles).

I feel that we shouldn’t swing from having too few minor warships to having too many at too low a spec. Also, I still see a need for speed and stealth (within reasonable cost considerations) and hence do not agree that these need to be 5,000t vessels. I want to see a design that has reasonable sensors, good utility to launch / support small helos, UAVs and boats, able to receive modular mission upgrades but above all still have a sting in the tail. The sting I like is the 76mm Oto Malera Strales gun as it gives a large number of options – enough to spoil anyone’s day and hence a modest enough capability to deter most foes coming too close. Some would also deploy with the RFTG for duties such as MCM, but also to act as a screen – a bit like torpedo armed destroyers of WW2…

Anixtu
Anixtu
December 31, 2013 9:49 am

Repulse,

“but I think the RFA is going to be stretched also”

Not relevant to your fantasy fleets discussion as manpower can be resolved with handwavium, but in the real world the RFA cannot man its existing fleet, never mind taking on more vessels or tasks. Any direct solution to this problem is likely to increase the per person costs of the RFA, narrowing the cost gap with RN manning.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
December 31, 2013 10:01 am

@Jules

We do not “sweep” anymore, only Hunt. MCMVs are non Magnetic and bloody quiet for a reason, they also have a hugely complex sonar mounted on the Hull, some of which are variable depth. Replacing them with something like this would require a very expensive modifications.
You would also only get limited benefit in terms of personnel, 1 SO2 Command qualified CO per MCMV retired and 1 Charge Qualified WO2 Engineer. Even the XO is only a 3rd job Lt and Ops a 2nd job, one of the 2 will be an MCDO but neither have any warfare experience. The Navigator and the Gunnery Officer will both be first job Slts/Lts and the WEO a Chief. You gain no AWW or AWT Senior Rates either.

IanW
IanW
December 31, 2013 10:42 am

@APATS,

As I understand the Black Swan proposal, it assumes that hunting will be done off-ship. Is this viable or likely to be in the forseeable? If so, it strengthens the argument for a cheap and cheerful mother ship rather than a single-purpose vessel.

Dunservin
Dunservin
December 31, 2013 10:56 am

Current RN minehunting sonars:

Sandown Class Sonar 2093 VDS: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/content/sonar-2093-variable-depth-mine-hunting-sonar

Hunt Class Sonar 2193 Hull-Mounted Broadband: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/content/sonar-2193-hull-mounted-minehunting-sonar

NAUTIS III Minehunter Command Management System used by both classes; an upgrade of this:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lekiu/lekiu6.html

All integrated with the Sea Fox UUV Mine Identification/Disposal System:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Weapons-Systems/Sea-Fox

None of this is any substitute for hydrographic systems used by survey vessels.

REMUS AUV – In RN operation now and with potential for the future:

http://www.navaldrones.com/Remus.html

Dunservin
Dunservin
December 31, 2013 3:59 pm

Just noticed an error in my previous post. For Sonar 2193, ‘Broadband’ should read ‘Wideband’. It ‘chirps’ across a range of frequencies (but too high to be audible to the human ear).

Jules
Jules
December 31, 2013 4:11 pm

@APATS, I know we don’t sweep anymore but I can’t get used to calling it Mine Countermeasures, It’s still sweeping and Hunting to me, I’m old-fashioned. If they decided tomorrow to do this, there would not be a Ship available for eighteen months – two years, plenty of time to train the right people up and bin the wrong uns (Fact of Forces Life now I’m afraid!) Going forward I think this type of Op will be conducted by ancillary craft from the mother ship whether manned or unmanned but chucked off the back or from davit’s at the side, the main craft will just be a hull to be filled with the appropriate equipment, thunderbird two style! If we have to hunt down mines in the same way as we do now, may as well keep the same vessels we’ve got?

@ IanW
That’s how I see it, just the same way as black swan but more adaptable by using smaller and larger but similar vessels working in conjunction or alone on lesser tasking’s.

There will be still a fair bit of commonality between the two types of vessel, as frankly there will be not much fixed equipment on the vessel itself, two or three Sigma’ a Scanter Radar set, some davits a rear ramp and a crane and a big empty space between the superstructure and the rear ramp…
Obviously no ramp on the moose’s as they will have a dock and use large CTRUK to do the mine hunting, smaller ones to carry CTRUK THOR,
Both to carry containerised UUV for use off the stern ramp or out of the dock.

I like Repulses idea for the blimp radar ship, so I’d containerise that too, to be a mission module.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
December 31, 2013 4:26 pm

@Jules

At the moment we still do make initial contacts via the MCMV sonar most of the time. The vehicle being used for classification and prosecution.
Given the need for MCDs on some contacts, as well as shallow water MCM, IED work and their anti terrorist role it is not as simple as binning the “wrong uns”
Then you have the issues of lead throughs and hunting ahead of a convoy.
These facts combined are exactly why we are SLEP ing the MCMVs we have as until we come up with some answers and the tech matures they remain the preferred option.

Jules
Jules
December 31, 2013 4:29 pm

FIVE Modules….
MCM
CHEMRING/RADAR PICKET
HELICOPTER HANGER/MAINTENANCE FACILITY
HOSPITAL/DISASTER RELIEF ACCOMMODATION

Secondary ASW capability via choppers all equipped with dipping sonar, wildcat and Merlin
buoys deployable from mothership or larger CTRUK
the smaller vessels housing only one aspect of A module, the larger two.

IanW
IanW
January 1, 2014 4:11 pm

These facts combined are exactly why we are SLEP ing the MCMVs we have as until we come up with some answers and the tech matures they remain the preferred option.

Right. And in reality the MoD and Navy aren’t looking to immediate implementation of modular vessels to replace (amongst others) mine hunters – no matter the instructive fun here in speculating about the possibilities. But if the remote tech develops as some suggest then this may be the way to go in the future, and commercial designs like the Ulsteins a useful, cost-effective basis. A key decision then is whether to go for larger or smaller, or a mix; perhaps the development of mine and counter-mine technology will be a factor.

Stan
Stan
January 4, 2014 7:53 pm

Sorry TD! You’re wrong. $28.5 million is a very ‘bare bones’ cost for the PX121. Nordic American Tankers recently exercised an option for the sixth PX121 in their fleet, and it cost them USD $45 million. (http://gcaptain.com/nordic-american-tankers-heads/)

I checked the specs of NAT’s fleet with the PX121 specs on Ulstein’s website, and they’re identical bar minor changes (probably a result of the graphic designers of the NAT PX121 PDF have more accurate info to hand on the NAT fleet, as these are real ships already qualified and in use).

This is important, because NAT is the original and sole customer for the PX121 as of today. So we can say for certain that no-one else has ever bought, or contracted for, a single PX121 for less than USD $45 million.

$28.5 it ain’t.

Add in a fany pants helideck and structural modifications, C4ISR, glitter-covered ISO containers and a drinks cabinet full of rum, and you’re into conventional naval OPV prices.