3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

aindriu80

smaller vessels are impractical and illogical in the north Atlantic. 50 million + 5 million over 20 - 30 years is peanuts.

nowecant

I am guessing that their top speed is more than a match for their requirements, lets face it they are not tracking down drug cartel speed boats but rather fishing boats.

Where the additional speed might be handy would be in responding to emergencies but I'm guessing that as most emergencies occur in adverse weather conditions that speeds in excess of 30K are not realistic.... can anyone correct me?

Does anyone know if there will be an open day for the public to view her when she eventually docks in Dublin?, which I assume she will do during her normal rotation.

Markcheese

aindriu80 wrote: »

smaller vessels are impractical and illogical in the north Atlantic. 50 million + 5 million over 20 - 30 years is peanuts.

Does anyone know what the naval service did with the main gun off the l.e. Eimer ?? How much more capable (or useful ) is the new weapons system on the Sam ?

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

Does anyone know what the naval service did with the main gun off the l.e. Eimer ?? How much more capable (or useful ) is the new weapons system on the Sam ?

Most likely went into there spares pool for the other two until they go out of service. As to capability, it was a crew maned open 40 mm while the 76mm is enclosed and fully automatic with longer range and better accuracy.

petergfiffin

Often wondered why the 76MM was chosen when other vessels of a similar size doing similar roles e.g. http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_027244 went with much smaller armament i.e. 30mm as main armament and 25mm as secondary. Clearly part of this is to make it look "warshippy" but has often seemed our ships are actually very heavily armed for what they do.

I know there's the argument they could be used in more of a supporting role for future UN operations and while this has been done in a small scale in the past surely this would be limited without a heli-deck, larger accommodation for troops and any real ability to provide NGS(Naval Gunfire Support) so while it's technically possible I'm not sure how practical it would really be on a prolonged basis.

There's also the argument you could upgrade them to frigate standard later (if technically possible) but surely that would be such a large investment (electronics, CIWS, potentially Harpoons) that adding 5m at that point for a larger gun would be largely academic.

I know there's the argument about type compatibility in having all ships with weapons of the same calibre (makes sense) just curious why such a large weapon was chosen considering it's already backed up by 20mms, .5s and GPMGs

OS119

petergfiffin wrote: »

...I know there's the argument about type compatibility in having all ships with weapons of the same calibre (makes sense) just curious why such a large weapon was chosen considering it's already backed up by 20mms, .5s and GPMGs

i must admit that the gun is, on first look, inconsistant with the role - however one very practical consideration does leap out:

lets say that Big Sam goes to stop and board a 'fishing boat' that our dear friends in the North have chartered for 'importation business' - lets then imagine, and in a not great stretch of that imagination, that one of the merry items about that 'fishing boat' is an AT-15 ATGW, or if they are less flush, an AT-4 or AT-5 ATGW. all three of these delightful systems are available to todays discerning terrorist, and all three outrange by some margin the 20mm or 30mm guns unsually given to OPV's.

one of the considerations when writing the spec for an Irish OPV must be that, unlike most Navies, that Irish OPV is on his own, theres nothing sleek and Death Star like hovering over the horizon waiting to vapourise anything the OPV Captain doesn't like. he either handles it, or he sinks.

sparky42

petergfiffin wrote: »

Often wondered why the 76MM was chosen when other vessels of a similar size doing similar roles e.g. http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_027244 went with much smaller armament i.e. 30mm as main armament and 25mm as secondary. Clearly part of this is to make it look "warshippy" but has often seemed our ships are actually very heavily armed for what they do.

I know there's the argument they could be used in more of a supporting role for future UN operations and while this has been done in a small scale in the past surely this would be limited without a heli-deck, larger accommodation for troops and any real ability to provide NGS(Naval Gunfire Support) so while it's technically possible I'm not sure how practical it would really be on a prolonged basis.

There's also the argument you could upgrade them to frigate standard later (if technically possible) but surely that would be such a large investment (electronics, CIWS, potentially Harpoons) that adding 5m at that point for a larger gun would be largely academic.

I know there's the argument about type compatibility in having all ships with weapons of the same calibre (makes sense) just curious why such a large weapon was chosen considering it's already backed up by 20mms, .5s and GPMGs

There's not really any standard for OPV weapons, the Danes, Dutch, Spanish OPV types also use 76mm for example, while the US Coastguard Legend class uses a 57mm (likely for commonality with the USN LCS).

If the Eithne program had delivered the 3 hulls that it was meant to (that's from memory but I do recall that there was meant to be more) then we might have ended up with a common standard of 57mm.

While I very much doubt there's any intention of "enhancing" them to a light frigate I suppose the Navy's view is that since they are all they have best to go with the largest that they could get away with. Keeping the 40mm wouldn't make sense as they couldn't be used fully off the West Coast, and I suppose once we had the Peacocks and had to make the investment for them that it just grew from there.

beauf

sparky42 wrote: »

... Keeping the 40mm wouldn't make sense as they couldn't be used fully off the West Coast, and I suppose once we had the Peacocks and had to make the investment for them that it just grew from there.

Er what?

beauf

OS119 wrote: »

...one of the considerations when writing the spec for an Irish OPV must be that, unlike most Navies, that Irish OPV is on his own, theres nothing sleek and Death Star like hovering over the horizon waiting to vapourise anything the OPV Captain doesn't like. he either handles it, or he sinks.

That would seem to be an important difference for Irish Navy vs similar vessels in other navies.

sparky42

beauf wrote: »

Er what?

What what?

Given the sea states that have occurred off the west coast I don't think it's beyond question that crewing and operating the 40mm Bofors would be difficult at best.

Outside of those 40mm's the Peacock class was the next largest similar gun's in service at 76mm, so when it came for the Roisin's they may have decided to go with the weapon given the investment in building up equipment/training for it. Certainly more sense than going back to even the 57mm of the Eithne.

beauf

Thanks. With you now.

petergfiffin

OS119 wrote: »

- lets then imagine, and in a not great stretch of that imagination, that one of the merry items about that 'fishing boat' is an AT-15 ATGW, or if they are less flush, an AT-4 or AT-5 ATGW. all three of these delightful systems are available to todays discerning terrorist, and all three outrange by some margin the 20mm or 30mm guns unsually given to OPV's.

Taking that example (which isn't stretching reality too far) then the 76 won't be much use to you and you'd really be relying on the ships damage control design or ideally some sort of always active CIWS to take out the the threat, incidentally the 30mm on the ship I linked to earlier is designed to engage such a threat.

sparky42

petergfiffin wrote: »

Taking that example (which isn't stretching reality too far) then the 76 won't be much use to you and you'd really be relying on the ships damage control design or ideally some sort of always active CIWS to take out the the threat, incidentally the 30mm on the ship I linked to earlier is designed to engage such a threat.

I'd wonder if the bog standard 20/30mm and radar systems on the RN OPV's are operationally capable of engaging such a threat, they aren't CWIS systems, they are crew served weapons, I doubt that they could intercept an inflight missile, that blurb is just what the hostile ship might be fitted with from what I read from your link.

petergfiffin

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd wonder if the bog standard 30mm and radar systems on the RN OPV's are operationally capable of engaging such a threat, they aren't CWIS systems, they are crew served weapons, I doubt that they could intercept an inflight missile, that blurb is just what the hostile ship might be fitted with from what I read from your link.

I'd seriously doubt they could, which in a sense is my point. You have RN OPVs doing pretty much an identical role to their Irish counterparts, facing similar threats and yet do it with significantly less well armed vessels. I know they have a larger force to fall back on but realistically if it went belly up help is probably still going to be several hours away.

I don't have a problem per se with the OPVs having 76s but I would just wonder if they''re really necessary given the money could have been used on either more kit or even towards the financing of other ships

sparky42

petergfiffin wrote: »

I'd seriously doubt they could, which in a sense is my point. You have RN OPVs doing pretty much an identical role to their Irish counterparts, facing similar threats and yet do it with significantly less well armed vessels. I know they have a larger force to fall back on but realistically if it went belly up help is probably still going to be several hours away.

I don't have a problem per se with the OPVs having 76s but I would just wonder if they''re really necessary given the money could have been used on either more kit or even towards the financing of other ships

On the other hand hitting a ship with a 76mm in reply is going to get the "bad guys" attention much more than a 20/30mm.

I think we could agree that a crew served weapon in some of the sea conditions that the Irish navy operates in isn't the best idea, in which case the options would be some sort of remote system. Given that the combined 4 guns of the Roisin/Beckett ships isn't enough to pay for half a Beckett I'm not sure that the costs savings of introducing another system in 2001 made sense. Think about it spares for training on the island, new ammunition stocks (the current 20mm weapons came after the Roisin's from memory)

aindriu80

Le Samuel Beckett is being put through its paces outside Ilfracombe Harbour.

beauf

Nice. Are their any interior shots of these ships or similar?

aindriu80

beauf wrote: »

Nice. Are their any interior shots of these ships or similar?

Nope. Pretty unlikely to ever see the insides ( unless its for T.V. )

Larbre34

PQ from the Dáil Éireann 25/3/14

Naval Service Vessels

All Written Answers on 25 Mar 2014


Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

To ask the Minister for Defence the plans in place for the commissioning of the LE Samuel Beckett as the newest vessel in the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Alan Shatter (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)

A contract was signed in October, 2010 with Babcock International in the United Kingdom for the provision of two new Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV’s) for the Naval Service. The first of the two ships to be called LE Samuel Beckett is a replacement for LE Emer. LE Emer was decommissioned and sold late last year. The Sea Trials for LE Samuel Beckett are now scheduled to take place in the UK at the end of this month. All going well with the Sea Trials the ship will be handed over to the Department of Defence and should arrive in Ireland by the end of April 2014. Details of the commissioning of LE Samuel Beckett into operational service will be finalised when the ship arrives in Ireland following handover.

nowecant

I would love if they asked a question regarding the third OPV.

IRLConor

nowecant wrote: »

I would love if they asked a question regarding the third OPV.

Ask one of your TDs to ask the question. That's where a lot of/most parliamentary questions come from.

Larbre34

nowecant wrote: »

I would love if they asked a question regarding the third OPV.

Ask your TD to ask it, they probably would.

nowecant

Im home at the weekend so i might just do that

Markcheese

Is it the end of 2014 or 2015 that the gov have got till to take up the option of the third vessel at the current price ??
Cos I can't see it being taken on till the last minute... (understandably really )

nowecant

From what I heard/read/understood is that a decision would be made based on the sea trails of LE Samuel Beckett. But i cant back this up with any references or facts.

Even if they make the decision now they wont start paying for it presumable until it is delivered. and guaranteeing the yard work on another ship after Joyce would help lower the price.

Larbre34

Cant see the price of similar vessel shooting up anytime soon. Unless NATO rations steel for the eastern front!

So the decision on OPV90-3 will be either to go with it or plough resources into a future blue water MRV.

nowecant

I think we are better off with a third one of these short term.

They more than surpass the current vessels and having three of type, of what seems like a very capable ship for our needs, would simplify and reduce cots for the future. It also keeps the 8 ship NS as it would be a one for one replacement and then give us time for planning/purchasing an MRV (I think this is being referred to as an Extended Patrol Vessel or EPV now??? )

I am very much in favour of the EPV plan by the way.

Larbre34

nowecant wrote: »

I think we are better off with a third one of these short term.

They more than surpass the current vessels and having three of type, of what seems like a very capable ship for our needs, would simplify and reduce cots for the future. It also keeps the 8 ship NS as it would be a one for one replacement and then give us time for planning/purchasing an MRV (I think this is being referred to as an Extended Patrol Vessel or EPV now??? )

I am very much in favour of the EPV plan by the way.

Yes I agree, if we can get three Beckett class on the roster in rapid succession, the next natural step would be replacement of Eithne with an EPV ( I couldnt think of the colloquial term for a minute) with sealift and proper Heli-Ops facilities. (A Type-26 GCS Frigate or a Valour-class modified Meko would do nicely thanks!)

Tabnabs

Keep an eye out in Dublin next week when the HNLMS Rotterdam and HNLMS Johan de Witt will be arriving on the 11th, something for the fender kickers to consider

sparky42

nowecant wrote: »

I think we are better off with a third one of these short term.

They more than surpass the current vessels and having three of type, of what seems like a very capable ship for our needs, would simplify and reduce cots for the future. It also keeps the 8 ship NS as it would be a one for one replacement and then give us time for planning/purchasing an MRV (I think this is being referred to as an Extended Patrol Vessel or EPV now??? )

I am very much in favour of the EPV plan by the way.

The problem of course being that everything other than the Roisin's are already past their expected life span, I wonder how soon that is going to be felt with wear and tear issues (and how much the Navy is going to have to pay for the two peacocks now:mad: