3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Ren2k7 · 24-04-2015 6:51pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Are you really going to trust the Chinese? The same people who had software glitches in their war games, and claimed it was superior Chinese tactics? Or some dude using C/MANO as a basis for his argument?

It was a Rand Corporation (a Pentagon think tank) that conducted simulations in 2008 that saw the F-35 get trounced by the PLA Air Force.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It's like when people shill for the Rafale and quote a Swiss comparison, saying the Rafale is better than the Eurofighter... Omitting the fact the Swiss use a trainer jet for the Eurofighter, and a combat jet for the Rafale.

It's not a matter of "shilling", it's merely pointing out the inherent defects and flaws in the aircraft. If it actually performed well I would argue in its favour. But as it stands no reasonable argument can be made for its adoption by countries.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Like I said. It is entirely ironic that he criticises it as a flop, when people said the exact same thing about the F16.

Really?

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes. Delays and overruns from having to cater to several different nations, when the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on a role for it. The A-10 is easily a good choice for air support. Not so much for air-to-air combat.

The A-10 wasn't designed in an air-to-air role, just CAS. Attempting to make the F-35 a jack of all trades will just end up being a case of master of none. Having different aircraft for different mission roles is a lot more effective than one aircraft attempting to perform all roles.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

"Cutting their losses". What sort of an investment is that? Just as it is reaching low-rate production, they cancel their orders? That doesn't seem entirely likely. The Canadians have Super Hornets, and they're buying 100 F35s, I believe. Do you know better than the Canadian Defence Forces? Or the British, the Norwegians, the Danish, the Australians?

Billions were also sunk into the pork laden Constellation space programme, initiated by the Shrub, until Obama came to power and promptly canned it and instead diverted funding towards private sector which is now bearing fruit with SpaceX.

IrishTrajan · 24-04-2015 6:57pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It was a Rand Corporation (a Pentagon think tank) that conducted simulations in 2008 that saw the F-35 get trounced by the PLA Air Force.

Link? I'd like to read it.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's not a matter of "shilling", it's merely pointing out the inherent defects and flaws in the aircraft. If it actually performed well I would argue in its favour. But as it stands no reasonable argument can be made for its adoption by countries.

Every plane has flaws, but the F35's value outweighs its cost to procure and run.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Really?

Yes, I posted the link above.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The A-10 wasn't designed in an air-to-air role, just CAS. Attempting to make the F-35 a jack of all trades will just end up being a case of master of none. Having different aircraft for different mission roles is a lot more effective than one aircraft attempting to perform all roles.

Absolutely. It just so happens that the F35 is better than the F18 in CAS, SEAD/DEAD, A2A. It's not as good as the F22 as a stealth fighter, but it is better than its rivals. The only reason to not use the F35 for SEAD/DEAD/CAS would be if you planned to use several Reaper drones to do that instead.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Billions were also sunk into the pork laden Constellation space programme, initiated by the Shrub, until Obama came to power and promptly canned it and instead diverted funding towards private sector which is now bearing fruit with SpaceX.

... Didn't their rocket just malfunction?

24-04-2015 7:03pm

Are we getting F35s?

No?

Then why bash them on this thread?

Why defend them on this thread?

IrishTrajan · 24-04-2015 7:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are we getting F35s?

No?

Then why bash them on this thread?

Why defend them on this thread?

Because someday we hope the Irish navy will have its own Ford-class carriers complete with F35s. :rolleyes:

It's an exercise in futility, man, just simple discussion between posters about opinions.

It's topic drift, but we're keeping it strictly military, and the F35 does have a carrier variant (two?) so it is still somewhat naval service related.

Ren2k7 · 24-04-2015 8:05pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Link? I'd like to read it.

Sure:

In Stillion and Perdue’s August 2008 war simulation, a massive Chinese air and naval force bore down on Beijing’s longtime rival Taiwan amid rising tensions in the western Pacific. A sudden Chinese missile barrage wiped out the tiny, outdated Taiwanese air force, leaving American jet fighters based in Japan and Guam to do battle with Beijing’s own planes and, hopefully, forestall a bloody invasion.

In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles.

That left 16 of the smaller, single-engine F-35s to do battle with the Chinese. As they began exchanging fire with the enemy jets within the mathematical models of the mock conflict, the results were shocking.

America’s newest stealth warplane and the planned mainstay of the future Air Force and the air arms of the Navy and Marine Corps, was no match for Chinese warplanes. Despite their vaunted ability to evade detection by radar, the JSFs were blown out of the sky. “The F-35 is double-inferior,” Stillion and Perdue moaned in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press.

The analysts railed against the new plane, which to be fair played only a small role in the overall simulation. “Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” they wrote. “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” Once missiles and guns had been fired and avoiding detection was no longer an option — in all but the first few seconds of combat, in other words — the F-35 was unable to keep pace with rival planes.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5

IrishTrajan wrote: »

... Didn't their rocket just malfunction?

Quite the opposite in fact, it performed flawlessly. The payload was delivered successfully into its intended orbit. SpaceX made an attempt to perform a recovery of the first stage on an ocean landing pad as part of ongoing efforts to create an entirely recoverable space launch system. Unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful, though given all the stages are destroyed anyway it made no difference to the actual mission. The recovery operations are a side mission.

BoJack Horseman · 24-04-2015 8:27pm

So a 7 year old 'model' that predicts defeat when outnumbered 3:1 against an aggressor.

Who could have predicted that!
That must have taken some work....

Cancel everything!

Boreas · 24-04-2015 9:38pm

sparky42 wrote: »

If they wanted to the could (though France has already commitments for the De Gaulle), they could base fast jets out of Malta if there's need for it but I'm betting it won't happen. Yes the fast jet fleets are much less than what they used to be, but they could easily deal with the bare dozen old gen fighters if they were an issue.

Highly unlikely the government here would allow jets to be based in Malta, it would be massively unpopular with the public. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took legal action to try and block it on constitutional grounds.

Unless there was a direct threat to Malta of course.

After everyone else goes home Malta will still have to work with whoever ends up in charge of Libya and the Maltese value their reputation as a friendly neutral nation.

sparky42 · 25-04-2015 5:46am

Boreas wrote: »

Highly unlikely the government here would allow jets to be based in Malta, it would be massively unpopular with the public. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took legal action to try and block it on constitutional grounds.

Unless there was a direct threat to Malta of course.

After everyone else goes home Malta will still have to work with whoever ends up in charge of Libya and the Maltese value their reputation as a friendly neutral nation.

A very fair point, and certainly domestic views should be taken into account, if fighters were needed there are other bases (and I'm doubtful that they wouldbe needed).

What's Malta's view on some of the extra ships being based from there, would that be an issue or an acceptable situation?

Boreas · 25-04-2015 7:22am

sparky42 wrote: »

What's Malta's view on some of the extra ships being based from there, would that be an issue or an acceptable situation?

Irregular migration is a sensitive issue in Malta. Rightly or wrongly many Maltese feel there has been a lack of solidarity on the issue from the Northern European countries. His rhetoric has changed now but the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat used to advocate 'push back' of all migrant boats, until the EU pointed out it would be illegal.

Ships being based in Malta would be acceptable to most people as long as those ships were landing the people they rescued in Italy or elsewhere. To be fair I would imagine the migrants themselves wouldn't want to end up in Malta either.

IrishTrajan · 25-04-2015 11:26am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Sure:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5

In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles.

Err.. The F22s and F35s were outnumbered 2.7:1 when the F22s were in play. Even I'd tell you that the odds are stacked against you if you play to engage in dog-fighting... Which wouldn't make sense considering that the F35 is rather likely to hit them from 180km away whilst only being seen at roughly 20km away.

I also question the validity of those "inferior climb, inferior agility" comments, considering I've already posted the F35s agility stats and the only ones who can compare are Su35S and F22.

Edit:

RAND backed away from the report, claiming it was never about jet-to-jet comparisons, and Stillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.

What I find most interesting is that RAND redacted the study, and Perdue is now working for Lockheed's competitor. Gee well, that was hardly biased.

Edit again:

I just love the banter here:

Steve O’Bryan, a Lockheed vice president and former fighter pilot, targeted the war game analysis and its authors. “It was policy people who did that report, [people] with no airplane experience,” O’Bryan said, adding that many critics of the F-35 “are people who are self-proclaimed experts who live in their mom’s basement and wear slippers to work.”

But Stillion and Perdue are both veteran aviators. Stillion flew in RF-4 recon planes and Perdue in F-15s during the Gulf War. “I don’t live in my mom’s basement,” Perdue said.

Edit three:

Where once mighty American warplanes soared over all others, giving Washington a distinct strategic advantage against any foe, in coming decades the U.S. air arsenal will likely be totally outclassed on a plane-by-plane basis by any country possessing the latest Russian and Chinese models — one of which, ironically, appears to be an improved copy of the JSF … minus all its worst design elements.

Do they mean the Pak-Fa, which the Russians can't afford to build and forced the Indians to buy from he French? And the J20, which has little going for it other than the "china stronk" posters?

If the unthinkable happens and sometime in the next 40 years a real war — as opposed to a simulation — breaks out over Taiwan or some other hot spot, a lot of U.S. jets could get shot down and a lot of American pilots killed. Battles could be lost. Wars could be forfeit.

Err, they do know that if Taiwan was invaded by China, the US wouldn't be sending a little over two dozen planes, right? They'd be sending in the Fords with their full air wings.

BoJack Horseman · 25-04-2015 12:24pm

It may turn out that the USAF putting their hopes into the 1 model (F-35A) may be foolish.... time will tell.

The most troublesome variant of the F35 (the 'B' variant) is also the biggest game changer, especially for European nations.

For a similar price to 4th gen aircraft, mid size powers will have the ability to launch strike fighters from much smaller platforms.

Within 10 years, the UK, Spain & Italy (and perhaps even Turkey) will have aircraft carrier strike capability utilising advanced stealth & avionics.

There is a chance (a small one) that Korea, Australia & Japan could do similar.... Giving similar ability to CATOBAR carriers for much less cost.

BowWow · 25-04-2015 12:55pm

Serious thread drift here.

gallag · 25-04-2015 3:21pm

BowWow wrote: »

Serious thread drift here.

But interesting non the less.

IrishTrajan · 25-04-2015 3:28pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It may turn out that the USAF putting their hopes into the 1 model (F-35A) may be foolish.... time will tell.

The most troublesome variant of the F35 (the 'B' variant) is also the biggest game changer, especially for European nations.

For a similar price to 4th gen aircraft, mid size powers will have the ability to launch strike fighters from much smaller platforms.

Within 10 years, the UK, Spain & Italy (and perhaps even Turkey) will have aircraft carrier strike capability utilising advanced stealth & avionics.

There is a chance (a small one) that Korea, Australia & Japan could do similar.... Giving similar ability to CATOBAR carriers for much less cost.

I don't see Australia operating CATOBAR carriers, when the British themselves are buying ones with a ramp and conventional propulsion, with around double the budget of the Australians. They bought LHDs a year or two ago, configured to allow them to move up to 40 tanks iirc.

That said, if the Australians wanted nuclear powered craft, I don't think there's much standing in their way politically, considering they have the largest reserve of uranium on the planet and the US has referred to them as their "deputy sheriff".

Japan doesn't want "aircraft carriers", I think. But they have several destroyers with aircraft launching capabilities to compete with China, I believe.

BoJack Horseman · 25-04-2015 3:54pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I don't see Australia operating CATOBAR carriers,

I didn't say they were.....on the contrary.

My point stated that the F35B will allow stealth & strike capability at a fraction of the cost of CATOBAR.

Australia's 2 x Canberra Class LHD vessels will be able to support the F35-B (should Australia decide to do so).

Japan doesn't want "aircraft carriers", I think. But they have several destroyers with aircraft launching capabilities to compete with China, I believe.

Japan cant appear too 'offensive' however despite lacking a ski-ramp, the new Izumo Class carrier can also accommodate the F35-B, which has tested successfully from the similarly sized US 'Wasp class' ships

The 'B' variant is the game changer.

(Apologies for digressing from thread topic)

BowWow · 25-04-2015 4:04pm

gallag wrote: »

But interesting non the less.

To you maybe. Start a thread for it if you want. This thread is for the three Beckett class ships.

If I want to read about the F36 v F16 I'll look in Aviation or Military under a suitable thread title.

If I want read about either the US or Egypt shooting down the non existant Libian air force I'd try After Hours.

IrishTrajan · 25-04-2015 4:16pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I didn't say they were.....on the contrary.

My point stated that the F35B will allow stealth & strike capability at a fraction of the cost of CATOBAR.

Australia's 2 x Canberra Class LHD vessels will be able to support the F35-B (should Australia decide to do so).

Japan cant appear too 'offensive' however despite lacking a ski-ramp, the new Izumo Class carrier can also accommodate the F35-B, which has tested successfully from the similarly sized US 'Wasp class' ships

The 'B' variant is the game changer.

I meant I can't see them operating them in the future. I do agree with you on the other points. Japan's Hyuga-class destroyers will also possess aircraft capabilities, I think.

pilatus · 25-04-2015 8:53pm

Back to my original point of the threat of Libyan aircraft, Egypt has been supplying MiG's to Libya recently and also Libyan MIG25s have been reactivated, don't know how many though.

Remember the NATO led alliance pounded the Libyan air bases and still there was a sizeable fleet left intact and hidden .

Ren2k7 · 26-04-2015 12:02am

Just to get back on topic it's known that our own three Beckett class vessels will support unmanned drones taking off from its vessels. Anyone know of the practicalities of this given the OPV's small size and lack of heli pad? With the Eithne and Peacocks approaching retirement the NS should be looking at acquiring vessels with helicopter flight decks.

sparky42 · 26-04-2015 12:08am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Just to get back on topic it's known that our own three Beckett class vessels will support unmanned drones taking off from its vessels. Anyone know of the practicalities of this given the OPV's small size and lack of heli pad? With the Eithne and Peacocks approaching retirement the NS should be looking at acquiring vessels with helicopter flight decks.

It most likely will be something along the lines of the Scan Eagle platform, catapult launch with a wire catching system, no helipad required, the RN have already used them on the River batch 1's I think.

In terms of the Peacock/Eithne replacement if we did end up with the EPV we will have that, but with the budgets as is I'm doubtful. And while they will be in service for up to 35 years, lets be fair our history in replacing the air corps hardware isn't anything to write home about. If to buy that capability we end up having to pay something like the Batch 2 Rivers (over twice the cost of the Becketts, then honestly I think I'd prefer getting 6 more Beckett's than the potential capability (presuming the Air Corp played nice). The Spanish BAM's cost the same as all of the Beckett program for example, would you prefer 3 Beckett's or 1 BAM?

Ren2k7 · 26-04-2015 12:09am

pilatus wrote: »

Back to my original point of the threat of Libyan aircraft, Egypt has been supplying MiG's to Libya recently and also Libyan MIG25s have been reactivated, don't know how many though.

Remember the NATO led alliance pounded the Libyan air bases and still there was a sizeable fleet left intact and hidden .

Well ISIS reportedly captured Syrian MiG's with former Iraqi pilots at the helms so it's not inconceivable Islamic State fighters could get their hands on Libyan jets and carry out Kamikaze style attacks on Western interests and forces both on land and at sea.

Ren2k7 · 26-04-2015 12:23am

sparky42 wrote: »

It most likely will be something along the lines of the Scan Eagle platform, catapult launch with a wire catching system, no helipad required, the RN have already used them on the River batch 1's I think.

In terms of the Peacock/Eithne replacement if we did end up with the EPV we will have that, but with the budgets as is I'm doubtful. And while they will be in service for up to 35 years, lets be fair our history in replacing the air corps hardware isn't anything to write home about. If to buy that capability we end up having to pay something like the Batch 2 Rivers (over twice the cost of the Becketts, then honestly I think I'd prefer getting 6 more Beckett's than the potential capability (presuming the Air Corp played nice). The Spanish BAM's cost the same as all of the Beckett program for example, would you prefer 3 Beckett's or 1 BAM?

In an ideal world the Eithne would be replaced by another helicopter patrol vessel given search and rescue missions the NS deals with all the time and needing choppers for winching those in distress at sea. Yes the Coast Guard also has this as its primary mission but having that extra capability, especially hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, can be the difference between life and death.

Speaking of the Coast Guard I would rather see it integrated fully into the Naval Service and become its Search and Rescue arm, much like RAF SAR. Ireland being a small country with limited resources should concentrate on making the Air Corps the single provider of all air operations, as it does with the Garda air support unit and HSE air ambulance service. Having a single service providing all of these roles makes more sense. Of course this would require the state buying out the CHC contract first.

sparky42 · 26-04-2015 12:33am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

In an ideal world the Eithne would be replaced by another helicopter patrol vessel given search and rescue missions the NS deals with all the time and needing choppers for winching those in distress at sea. Yes the Coast Guard also has this as its primary mission but having that extra capability, especially hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, can be the difference between life and death.

Speaking of the Coast Guard I would rather see it integrated fully into the Naval Service and become its Search and Rescue arm, much like RAF SAR. Ireland being a small country with limited resources should concentrate on making the Air Corps the single provider of all airborne roles, as it does with the Garda air support unit and HSE air ambulance service. Having a single service providing all of these roles makes more sense. Of course this would require the state buying out the CHC contract first.

Well bare in mind that a previous Government took the SAR away from the Air Corps to give it to CHC also I'd say there was zero chance that Bertie would have paid the $17 million a unit cost for them (IMO idealy we should have just gone for Seahawk's instead of the 139's (and if we had the Air Corps doing SAR get a few more), but that's water under the bridge. Don't expect any of the parties to care enough to bring it back into the Air Corps unless CHC screws up in an epic and terrible way.

In terms of a ship, that only makes sense if we maintained a level of competency for such operations (and I think you'd have to go much bigger than the BAM for the S-92 (they are larger heavier and with a larger blade radius, so more costs for the ship)), and are the ones we have designed for maritime operations?

roundymac · 26-04-2015 9:28am

Over on IMO they are saying that P62 will sail on further sea trials on the 4/5th may, if these are sucessful she will then be accepted and delivery will take place shortly after. It seems the problem was in the propellers.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-04-2015 11:02am

sparky42 wrote: »

As for the Brits, the point is they have created true lemon's of carriers just to get BAE the B variant contract. The limits include having to build one off Merlins for AWACs that are always going to be inferior to the Hawkeye that even France manages to have on a smaller carrier, they've gone for the most expensive and limited variant of the 35 and there was no pressing need to do so. They could have built a CATOBAR QE without much greater expense/difficulty and shared the Fords new Cat design, instead they get a carrier that currently is planned only to have surge capacity, normally having less than 2 dozen 35's

How much did they spend on catapult changes on those carriers ?

Don't get me started on how they sold off 72 harriers to the USMC for £116m. Before that just about any large vessel could have been used as a carrier if up against second level opponents. Couple of containers for spares , bit of welding on the deck and it's rock and roll time. They did an impressive conversion job on at least one car ferry for the Falklands.

Yes they were ageing, yes having a single engine means you don't want to be in one when there's a problem.

Can the F35 viff ? And there's no point in saying it'll all be stand off missiles, because you don't need an F35 to carry missiles. HMS Ocean and 72 half serviceable Harriers would still be something that most countries would would have to think twice about about. Had the Falklands war happened a few months later Invincible would have been delivered to Australia and Hermes decommissioned. It wouldn't have happened a few years earlier because they still had Ark Royal with the Gannets for AWACS , Buccaneers for coming in below the radar, and a few Phantoms too.

As for stealth IIRC no ships were lost on convoys escorted by blimps. And some of those had massive radars inside the balloon.

Ask over on the astronomy forum about improvements in photography over the years. Despite all the noise about Hubble , ground scopes have caught up for many purposes. Hubbles main advantage is it has less light pollution up there. Stealth is probably overrated. There's no stealth in clear skies or rain.

Has anyone tried using lasers / high altitude parachute flares to detect stealth aircraft ? Then again that new really really back (not dark blue) stuff that reflects almost no light means you'd be looking for the hole in the noise , which by the way is doable.

The original spec for US early warning radar was small continuous wave boxes on telephone poles with a modem back to base if the signal changed. It's not as simple as looking at reflections from mobile phone masts and other transmitters, but processing power to day is so cheap compared to the cost of an F35 that it might be worth looking at.

Whatever about us joining NATO and buying aircraft from Sweden , there's no way we could justify buying white elephants.

[/RANT]

All kinda academic given how many F35's we could buy and run for what we are spending on these ships.

expectationlost · 28-04-2015 8:02pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Deployment of a Naval Vessel to Assist in the Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/5DA6B7566A3866B38025777000566065/EBF2905C273EB68080257E31004948B8 its a maybe, willing if they want us and if we can. Are their new ships any use for this kinda thing, thought they had to have a low side to take people on board easily or would it just be use for search and surveillance?

this is what I was reffering to re criticism of the LÉ Aoife being given to the Maltese
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/malta-calls-navy-ship-gift-junk-313894.html

It said AFM sources had pointed out the vessel had no capabilities to launch a small craft from its stern — essential in operations involving flimsy craft migrants often use for crossings.

is the same issue for the news ships.

sparky42 · 28-04-2015 8:12pm

expectationlost wrote: »

this is what I was reffering to re criticism of the LÉ Aoife being given to the Maltese
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/malta-calls-navy-ship-gift-junk-313894.html
is the same issue for the news ships.

The Maltese complaints were from former personnel that were basically talking on a Maltese version Boards.ie. The Minister apologised if I remember. We mount the Ribs on the side, they go for a stern launch. No major difference, the frigates that the Itlalians use don't exactly have low freeboard either.

nowecant · 28-04-2015 8:14pm

If the INS was to get Extended Patrol Vessel, do we have a dry dock that can support her?

I remember seeing a video of one of the ships going into dock in Verolme (I think) and it did not look like there was much room for anything larger.

Is the dry dock in the basin in use? Is it owned by the INS?

sparky42 · 28-04-2015 8:25pm

nowecant wrote: »

If the INS was to get Extended Patrol Vessel, do we have a dry dock that can support her?

I remember seeing a video of one of the ships going into dock in Verolme (I think) and it did not look like there was much room for anything larger.

Is the dry dock in the basin in use? Is it owned by the INS?

That's one of the question and why I don't know if we could get an off the shelf version. The Absalon for example would barely fit (as in 1m to spare) and I don't think there'd be enough space in the dock to work on the hull even after it got in.

The one in the Basin would have to be rebuilt, the gate (for lack of the correct term) is free floating (have a look on Google Maps and you can see it floating in the dock), and the pump room got flooded with Concrete at some point as far as I know.

nowecant · 28-04-2015 8:32pm

sparky42 wrote: »

The one in the Basin would have to be rebuilt, the gate (for lack of the correct term) is free floating (have a look on Google Maps and you can see it floating in the dock), and the pump room got flooded with Concrete at some point as far as I know.

So it is bigger and the INS do own it.

Free floating? As in it was meant to be attached and is currently tied up against the quay wall?

Or was it originally designed to be a free floating gate and needs to be changed to a "static" one?

I am looking on google earth now and am not sure which object it is. Also what about the marina that currently seems to reside in the dry dock?

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Comments