3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Morpheus

Future surface ships?
ship built to military spec
ASW detection capabilities with depth charge launcher at least
an Air search radar
and built to house long range surface to air missiles which would complement our short range RBS 70's
CIWS
Heli pad
and large after deck

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

Future surface ships?
ship built to military spec
ASW detection capabilities with depth charge launcher at least
an Air search radar
and built to house long range surface to air missiles which would complement our short range RBS 70's
CIWS
Heli pad
and large after deck

It's asroc, torpedoes or helicopter deployed torpedoes are the real options, outside of the "feck off" use depth charges aren't a normally fitted system anymore.
If we were going for missiles than the RBS 70s have no place on the ship they are manpads nothing more, ESSM/SeaCeptor/aster 15 at a minimum for anything you are going to spend that much on.

All in all go look at the formidable class light frigate as something of an example of what you'd have to go with ( then look at the price tag).

I really doubt those overly armed corvettes that BAe built a few years back would work.

Yawlboy

The Eithne, Ciara (both built 1984) and Orla (built 1985) are all over 30 years old now. Their replacements need to be ordered now. I can't see the government doing anything about this for another few years so we could end up with a 5 ship navy in a few years.

sparky42

Yawlboy wrote: »

The Eithne, Ciara (both built 1984) and Orla (built 1985) are all over 30 years old now. Their replacements need to be ordered now. I can't see the government doing anything about this for another few years so we could end up with a 5 ship navy in a few years.

An bord snip nua pushed the replacements to a 35 year schedule from memory so I don't see any of the three going away anytime soon, most likely as with the 20s here be an over run of the 35 year rule during construction.

Think it's a bit early to be declaring a 5 ship navy.

Yawlboy

sparky42 wrote: »

An bord snip nua pushed the replacements to a 35 year schedule from memory so I don't see any of the three going away anytime soon, most likely as with the 20s here be an over run of the 35 year rule during construction.

Think it's a bit early to be declaring a 5 ship navy.

The 60's were ordered in 2010 for delivery in 2014, 15 and 16 (P63 was ordered later)

as I said we should be ordering them now or at least starting the tender process.

sparky42

Yawlboy wrote: »

The 60's were ordered in 2010 for delivery in 2014, 15 and 16 (P63 was ordered later)

as I said we should be ordering them now or at least starting the tender process.

They were delayed due to us picking a shipyard that was already building CVF parts. We knew that when we delayed the order (had it been 08ish we could have gotten in before the CVF). Since the UK isn't going to be building anything like that again the demand on the yards never going to be the same again (assuming we go with a UK yard again).

Would it be good to see, yes. Is it a crisis yet, No.

OzCam

If we wanted to beef up the Army's armour, there's an opportunity to do it at less cost than usual. The New Zealand Army have mothballed 1/3 of their NZLAV fleet. They share a common ancestor with the Piranha, so there should be some training and spares commonality. And some of those units pack a punch.

Yes, we should have gone for CV90s in the first place. My understanding is that the opinion at the time was that we didn't need tracked vehicles because we'd operate in places with roads and that tracked vehicles were harder to maintain. (Certainly if someone was looking at Bradleys or Warriors for comparison.)

Recent experience of others has shown that off-road ability is needed where the roads are IED'd to fcuk, so that idea might need another look if we really do intend or need to deploy to somewhere hotter than Chad.

Heraldoffreeent

OzCam wrote: »

If we wanted to beef up the Army's armour, there's an opportunity to do it at less cost than usual. The New Zealand Army have mothballed 1/3 of their NZLAV fleet. They share a common ancestor with the Piranha, so there should be some training and spares commonality. And some of those units pack a punch.

Yes, we should have gone for CV90s in the first place. My understanding is that the opinion at the time was that we didn't need tracked vehicles because we'd operate in places with roads and that tracked vehicles were harder to maintain. (Certainly if someone was looking at Bradleys or Warriors for comparison.)

Recent experience of others has shown that off-road ability is needed where the roads are IED'd to fcuk, so that idea might need another look if we really do intend or need to deploy to somewhere hotter than Chad.

Mothballed doesn't mean thy're selling them.
There were reports in 2010 that they were, but thats 5 years ago now, and I've not heard of them making any effort to do so.
As far as I'm aware the Skyhawks they mothballed were all still in storage 11 years later, and they still have 12 or 13 of them knocking about as gate guards, in museums etc. .

OzCam

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Mothballed doesn't mean thy're selling them.

Well maybe they've had time to think about it since. There has been a change of government, and apparently a change of attitude to the defence forces. They seem to have finished their big reorg., the land parts of it anyway. If someone came along with a reasonable offer they might sell. We'll never know unless we ask.

roundymac

Thread drift???

OzCam

roundymac wrote: »

Thread drift???

What, after 3 posts? In reply to a valid question?

Feel free to post something useful about the Navy then

Silvera

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Mothballed doesn't mean thy're selling them.
There were reports in 2010 that they were, but thats 5 years ago now, and I've not heard of them making any effort to do so.
As far as I'm aware the Skyhawks they mothballed were all still in storage 11 years later, and they still have 12 or 13 of them knocking about as gate guards, in museums etc. .

The NZ govt have tried several times to offload the Skyhawks, and came close to a deal once or twice. They have sold off most (all?) of their MB339's to a U.S. based company.

Incidentially, the RNZAF have recently purchased 11 x Texan II/PC-9M advanced trainers. (Their first 'fast aircraft' since the Skyhawks/MB339's were 'mothballed'!).

pilatus

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Large-military-ship-spotted-coast-Ilfracombe/story-26134128-detail/story.html

Anyway, back on topic , a post relating to James Joyce and a photo, not great but still a photo.

sparky42

pilatus wrote: »

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Large-military-ship-spotted-coast-Ilfracombe/story-26134128-detail/story.html

Anyway, back on topic , a post relating to James Joyce and a photo, not great but still a photo.

I lve how she's called a "large ship", even though the newspaper has covered their construction:rolleyes:

Seems to be going alright from what I've seen on the tracking, think it's next week she sails for Cobh all going well.

Markcheese

pilatus wrote: »

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Large-military-ship-spotted-coast-Ilfracombe/story-26134128-detail/story.html

Anyway, back on topic , a post relating to James Joyce and a photo, not great but still a photo.

Bloody hell that's some article- on the next page is " Devon man puts bin out on Tuesday for a Wednesday collection - village in uproar "

BowWow

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-navy-vessel-to-control-drones-and-robotic-subs-31072589.html

roundymac

This guy Sean O Riordan is getting some great copy out of the "Becketts". A few things I did'nt know about the navy in there.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/navy-drones-to-fight-drug-cartels-319070.html

IrishTrajan

roundymac wrote: »

This guy Sean O Riordan is getting some great copy out of the "Becketts". A few things I did'nt know about the navy in there.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/navy-drones-to-fight-drug-cartels-319070.html

He also said that while the military traditionally sucked resources from the State, this private/public collaboration is a way of giving back to the taxpayer.

When we're trying to convince people to invest more in the Defence Forces, I don't think calling them historic leeches is the best wording to use...

OzCam

Dear Mr O'Riordan,

When MEDEVAC 112 is flying you to hospital some day, you won't be complaining about the military "sucking resources" from taxpayers.

Or perhaps you're thinking of the F-35?

roundymac

In fairness that remark is atributed to Hugh Tully FOC of the navy.


Flag officer commanding the naval service, Hugh Tulley, said the collaboration “is a game-changer for us” as it aids the force’s military capabilities as well as helping companies to develop products.
He also said that while the military traditionally sucked resources from the State, this private/public collaboration is a way of giving back to the taxpayer.

IrishTrajan

roundymac wrote: »

In fairness that remark is atributed to Hugh Tully FOC of the navy.


Flag officer commanding the naval service, Hugh Tulley, said the collaboration “is a game-changer for us” as it aids the force’s military capabilities as well as helping companies to develop products.
He also said that while the military traditionally sucked resources from the State, this private/public collaboration is a way of giving back to the taxpayer.

It seems the "gift of the glib" skips some people...

Larbre34

With Enda in D.C. this week there is a lot being spoken about this years full year celebration of the 150th birthday of W.B. Yeats.

Perhaps adds to the likelihood of a naming announcement of P63?

aindriu80

Great to see the second new ship but its a carbon copy of Beckett so I am not hunting for the pictures. Is the third ship the same again or are they going for the bigger idea ?

Heraldoffreeent

aindriu80 wrote: »

Great to see the second new ship but its a carbon copy of Beckett so I am not hunting for the pictures. Is the third ship the same again or are they going for the bigger idea ?

All three will be the same, the same design has been used.

The bigger idea I think you mean, Is the EPV, which hasn't got to the design phase yet, and at this stage probably won't, as far as I'm aware they only got to RFI/RFP when the crash happened.

sparky42

aindriu80 wrote: »

Great to see the second new ship but its a carbon copy of Beckett so I am not hunting for the pictures. Is the third ship the same again or are they going for the bigger idea ?

No the 63 is the same class.

Maoltuile

IrishTrajan wrote: »

When we're trying to convince people to invest more in the Defence Forces, I don't think calling them historic leeches is the best wording to use...

Maybe he's gotten an MBA? It does strange things to people's common sense.

OzCam

I was going to make a narky point about the number of ships (aircraft/nurses/firefighters/SNAs/houses/hospices/schools etc) the country could afford if the taxpayers hadn't been gouged out of billions to save stupid mendacious banks... but that would be off-topic.

Anyone care to guess how many ships we could run over the next 30 years for €64 billion?

My apologies to Mr O'Riordan.

IrishTrajan

OzCam wrote: »

I was going to make a narky point about the number of ships (aircraft/nurses/firefighters/SNAs/houses/hospices/schools etc) the country could afford if the taxpayers hadn't been gouged out of billions to save stupid mendacious banks... but that would be off-topic.

Anyone care to guess how many ships we could run over the next 30 years for €64 billion?

My apologies to Mr O'Riordan.

That'd break down to around €2bn per annum, correct? Considering that's larger than the entire Defence Budget currently, so we could probably double or triple the size of the Naval Service.

At €2.1bn per year, we could overhaul Cobh and probably buy and easily support the following:

9 more Beckett OPVs (for a total of 12)
3 Halifax-class or Ivar Huitfeldt-class missile frigates
3 Absalon support ships
3 Type-214 submarines


The initial cost would be in the region of €3bn, but the operating cost would likely never succeed €2bn per year.


Heck, if we really wanted to go full batshít crazy, we could operate a Nimitz-class carrier for €1.65bn per year, and last us over 30 years (they cost around $4.5mn a day to operate), and just go bombing Boko Haram and ISIS and the like...

Silvera

OzCam wrote: »

I was going to make a narky point about the number of ships (aircraft/nurses/firefighters/SNAs/houses/hospices/schools etc) the country could afford if the taxpayers hadn't been gouged out of billions to save stupid mendacious banks... but that would be off-topic.

Anyone care to guess how many ships we could run over the next 30 years for €64 billion?

My apologies to Mr O'Riordan.

I agree. So much in this country could vastly improve if the 'power-that-be' ran it efficiently and stopped wasting taxpayers money on silly projects...E-voting anyone?! :eek::mad:

salmocab

Im a bit of a Lurker here, usually have a read without having much knowledge but generally find it interesting, I was just wondering if the new ship is 63 does that mean its the 63rd ship the Navy have brought into commission either old or new, or is there some other system used to get to the 63?