The "Crossover" support vessel

BoJack Horseman

Potentially something the NS will consider if they do go ahead with plans for a dedicated support vessel.

The new range of "crossover" frigate from Damen shipyards in the Netherlands seem to fit.

Slightly smaller than the Danish Absalon' support frigate at 4,500 to 5,500 tonnes.

They seem good, space for the usual armaments, 76 mm gun, 20-30mm cannon or two, even room for an 8-cell VLS if needed.

Plenty of room for side/stern loading, a 25-40 tonne crane & large heli-deck.

http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/crossover

She ticks a lot of boxes & could be worth considering if the NS proceed.

voter1983

Looks the part and i'm sure it'd be a great addition to the fleet but would it be practical? How many will it take to crew her? How much would it cost? If these numbers are too high would we be better off with two more P60 class ships instead?

BoJack Horseman

voter1983 wrote: »

How many will it take to crew her?

There are several versions within the range.
The more 'logistical' versions have crews around 60-80, so not much more than existing ships.

The ones tailored to meet combat missions & can support 2 x helicopters have crews in the 100+

How much would it cost?

I couldn't find any info on orders placed by countries (if any have yet been ordered).

At a wild guess, perhaps €90m - €120m depending on variant?

If these numbers are too high would we be better off with two more P60 class ships instead?

I imagine as the patrol vessels age out they will be replaced anyway..... The next oldest is the 'Aisling'.

The idea of a logistics/support/command vessel has been desired for many years.
It shouldn't be seen as taking away from the patrol vessels, rather enhancing the NS in general.

A crew of 80-ish isn't outlandish.

a/tel

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There are several versions within the range.
The more 'logistical' versions have crews around 60-80, so not much more than existing ships.

The ones tailored to meet combat missions & can support 2 x helicopters have crews in the 100+


I couldn't find any info on orders placed by countries (if any have yet been ordered).

At a wild guess, perhaps €90m - €120m depending on variant?



I imagine as the patrol vessels age out they will be replaced anyway..... The next oldest is the 'Aisling'.

The idea of a logistics/support/command vessel has been desired for many years.
It shouldn't be seen as taking away from the patrol vessels, rather enhancing the NS in general.

A crew of 80-ish isn't outlandish.

Aisling's replacement already being built, the as yet unnamed P63. Samuel Beckett class

Wheelsonthebus

I see on the Naval Services' facebook page that the Danish Ambassador visited Haulbowline last week.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.806606209422277.1073742090.101764433239795&type=1

Anything to be read into this?

Potential Absalon Class under discussion?

sparky42

Wheelsonthebus wrote: »

I see on the Naval Services' facebook page that the Danish Ambassador visited Haulbowline last week.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.806606209422277.1073742090.101764433239795&type=1

Anything to be read into this?

Potential Absalon Class under discussion?

The Absalon has a very narrow window of difference in width in terms of fitting into the graving dock, with only a metre to spare. Could that be a limiting factor?

BoJack Horseman

Also, didn't the ship yard that built 'absalon ' close down?

Probably just a routine courtesy visit.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Also, didn't the ship yard that built 'absalon ' close down?

Probably just a routine courtesy visit.

I think it's not in the Warship building business anymore but I think it's still doing something... Could be wrong though. Besides the basic hull work was done in Poland, it was only the high value/tech work done in the domestic yard, part of the reason they are cheap.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

The Absalon has a very narrow window of difference in width in terms of fitting into the graving dock, with only a metre to spare. Could that be a limiting factor?

Whatever happened to the ex Royal Navy Treaty Ports? Is Hauwboline really the only suitable place for Irish naval vessels to dock at?

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Whatever happened to the ex Royal Navy Treaty Ports? Is Hauwboline really the only suitable place for Irish naval vessels to dock at?

I'm not talking about the base, I'm talking about the dockyard. Are we going to send it up to Belfast to get it's yearly service work done for example?

Tabnabs

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm not talking about the base, I'm talking about the dockyard. Are we going to send it up to Belfast to get it's yearly service work done for example?

Dublin Graving Docks would have a bigger safety margin with the beam, but draft would be marginal. http://dublingravingdocks.com/dry-docking/

Larbre34

Wheelsonthebus wrote: »

I see on the Naval Services' facebook page that the Danish Ambassador visited Haulbowline last week.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.806606209422277.1073742090.101764433239795&type=1

Anything to be read into this?

Potential Absalon Class under discussion?

I doubt it. Even if they wanted a larger support vessel, they would have to go to tender for it, and they couldnt say we want 'an Absalon', the other ship builders in Europe would have to be allowed offer a suitable type to a certain spec - and you arent allowed spec it in such a way to contrive a certain vessel type.

sparky42

Tabnabs wrote: »

Dublin Graving Docks would have a bigger safety margin with the beam, but draft would be marginal. http://dublingravingdocks.com/dry-docking/

Which also raises the question of how deep the Basin is, would the draft be an issue there as well?

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm not talking about the base, I'm talking about the dockyard. Are we going to send it up to Belfast to get it's yearly service work done for example?

Then the solution is pretty obvious, build larger graving docks in the Republic to support any work needed done on the Absalon. It's not rocket science.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Which also raises the question of how deep the Basin is, would the draft be an issue there as well?

Dublin graving docks can support vessels with a draft of 6.5 metres while the Absalon class has a draft of 6.3 metres. Should be OK.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Dublin graving docks can support vessels with a draft of 6.5 metres while the Absalon class has a draft of 6.3 metres. Should be OK.

Didn't ask about a GRaving dock I asked about the Basin in Haulbowline. Two different issues.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Then the solution is pretty obvious, build larger graving docks in the Republic to support any work needed done on the Absalon. It's not rocket science.

Sure let's spend years in planning, at least twice the cost of the Absalon on costs to build a new graving dock that may be needed by 1 maybe 2 ships of the navy if they were selected...

Yeah I'm sure the budget and the demand and the political will is there to make that a sensible and viable investment...

Larbre34

Don't worry about it the Absalon, the attached mock up of the proposed cruise berth in Dun Laoghaire, showing the Queen Mary 2 in dock, seems to suggest that we in the near future acquire an Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, berthed at the east pier. That should be something fun to look at eating your Teddys ice cream of a Sunday

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Sure let's spend years in planning, at least twice the cost of the Absalon on costs to build a new graving dock that may be needed by 1 maybe 2 ships of the navy if they were selected...

Yeah I'm sure the budget and the demand and the political will is there to make that a sensible and viable investment...

Yep, we should build facilities for newer and larger vessels. We are a maritime nation and our Naval Service (it should be simply the Irish Navy) should reflect this in the form of a much larger fleet.

Ireland now has an economy of similar size to the likes of Finland and Denmark, two nations who boast much larger navies than ours. It's time for Ireland to stop being ashamed of its military and start taking a much more proactive role in international peacekeeping and security as well as providing a credible defence of the homeland.

Off shore patrol vessels are all well and good but it's time to start thinking bigger.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yep, we should build facilities for newer and larger vessels. We are a maritime nation and our Naval Service (it should be simply the Irish Navy) should reflect this in the form of a much larger fleet.

Ireland now has an economy of similar size to the likes of Finland and Denmark, two nations who boast much larger navies than ours. It's time for Ireland to stop being ashamed of its military and start taking a much more proactive role in international peacekeeping and security as well as providing a credible defence of the homeland.

Off shore patrol vessels are all well and good but it's time to start thinking bigger.

Don't disagree with you, but the reality is first you have to change how the population views defence and it's costs, second you have to change the budget, and then start looking at facilities (bare in mind even the UK designs its carriers to fit the existing infrastructure rather than build/expand what they have (and that's going back decades (CVA 01 for example))).
It is not a minor issue if Haulbowline can't be used for support, it means duplication of hardware or even replacement of the facilities (again you get into pricy budgets for extended periods of time). If both the base and the Cobh graving dock need to be replaced to support larger ships then you are talking billions long before you get the new ships.

How are you going to convince a nation who think the stunt Daly and Wallace got up is a good thing that we need to spend on defence instead of "insert pump parish demand of choice".

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Don't disagree with you, but the reality is first you have to change how the population views defence and it's costs, second you have to change the budget, and then start looking at facilities (bare in mind even the UK designs its carriers to fit the existing infrastructure rather than build/expand what they have (and that's going back decades (CVA 01 for example))).
It is not a minor issue if Haulbowline can't be used for support, it means duplication of hardware or even replacement of the facilities (again you get into pricy budgets for extended periods of time). If both the base and the Cobh graving dock need to be replaced to support larger ships then you are talking billions long before you get the new ships.

How are you going to convince a nation who think the stunt Daly and Wallace got up is a good thing that we need to spend on defence instead of "insert pump parish demand of choice".

Let's start by instilling some national pride in our forces, declare 24th of April (tomorrow incidentally) as a national holiday, our 'Proclamation Day' (like 4th July and Bastille Day). It might seem a bit jingoistic but it would begin changing the Irish psyche to make it more predisposed towards our Forces. Also by increasing spending to a minimum of 1% each year a more modern and up to date Forces would be seen less as an embarrassment (which in certain respects it is: the Air Corp is a bloody farce with their toy planes) and as something young men and women look at with pride and a desire to join.

One final thing. Irish Nationalism isn't a dirty concept. Doffing our caps to British royalty isn't a sign we are "maturing as a nation". Having some basic bloody pride in our nation, a 32 county nation is how we would actually mature as a nation. Until we stop running ourselves down ("this country is a bleedin' kip, I'm emigrating etc etc....") we can never truly be able to rid ourselves of the parish pump gobshytes who have fecked this country over since 1922.

lordarpad

A logistic support vessel would be handy for UN missions, so get one of them. The Damen ships look perfect - and they support LCVPs. 8 cell VLS can take 32 CAMM/CAMM-ER, which should be plenty. 76mm gun with Volcano projectiles.

BoJack Horseman

lordarpad wrote: »

A logistic support vessel would be handy for UN missions, so get one of them. The Damen ships look perfect - and they support LCVPs. 8 cell VLS can take 32 CAMM/CAMM-ER, which should be plenty. 76mm gun with Volcano projectiles.

I doubt very much the navy would consider any vessel variant with VLS cells.

Having said that I think some sort of anti-air/anti-missile system would be prudent, depending on cost..

Something like the bolt-on 'Crotale' systems are in common use and seem handy.


Or alternatively, something that can employ the defence forces existing stock of RB70 missiles?

It may seem overkill, but things are changing... we remember only last summer an Egyptian naval patrol vessel was heavily damaged by a missile launched from land by ISIS in the Sinai.

Missions like anti-piracy & UN mission support in Lebanon/Syria may compel such an investment.

lordarpad

crotale? I know it's been modernised but still. And what is wrong with VLS cells? They are actually a lot less visible and hence more easily argued.

BoJack Horseman

lordarpad wrote: »

crotale?

Or anything really....
I figure something bolted to the surface of a vessel is more versatile than giving up below deck space for a VLS module.

Plus, don't VLS systems require their own dedicated fire control & radar systems that an 'all in one' bolt-on system might not need?

And what is wrong with VLS cells? They are actually a lot less visible and hence more easily argued.

Nowt wrong.... but can you imagine what our hysterical media & frenzied noise machine Clare Daly would do.... every publication would be filled with blazing images of Tomahawk & SM2 launches.

Its largely why we can't have nice things!

lordarpad

well, our hysterical media are mostly right wing. And if you look at the radar mast in the picture shown - that is an iMast 400, which has all the required radars and fire control.

Crotale is a system from the 80s and really not what anybody is installing these days. And while I was thinking Sylver, CAMM does come with its own 6-cell VLS, that can't hold anything but CAMM. It is also quad-packable into Mk 41 and Sylver.

There is also always the option of fitting FBNW.

If we want a modern "stick on" system, one could use SeaRAM

a/tel

lordarpad wrote: »

well, our hysterical media are mostly right wing. And if you look at the radar mast in the picture shown - that is an iMast 400, which has all the required radars and fire control.

Crotale is a system from the 80s and really not what anybody is installing these days. And while I was thinking Sylver, CAMM does come with its own 6-cell VLS, that can't hold anything but CAMM. It is also quad-packable into Mk 41 and Sylver.

There is also always the option of fitting FBNW.

If we want a modern "stick on" system, one could use SeaRAM

This is all pie in the sky, our defence budget barely allows for 76mm rounds and secondhand 20mm cannons!!!. Best we can hope for is a retrofit of an RBS70 which is manned, not automated.

Larbre34

I wouldn't be so sure, there is a clearly a push to beef up the Naval Service somewhat, from the soundings of Coveney and the new CoS, talking about zones of responsibility and economic assets. The javelin system was procured without too much fuss, if they are going to see about building a couple of serious offshore multi-role vessels, it'd be harder to get one without a VLS than with.

daithicarr

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yep, we should build facilities for newer and larger vessels. We are a maritime nation and our Naval Service (it should be simply the Irish Navy) should reflect this in the form of a much larger fleet.

Ireland now has an economy of similar size to the likes of Finland and Denmark, two nations who boast much larger navies than ours. It's time for Ireland to stop being ashamed of its military and start taking a much more proactive role in international peacekeeping and security as well as providing a credible defence of the homeland.

Off shore patrol vessels are all well and good but it's time to start thinking bigger.

Our economy really isint the same size. according to 2014 figures
In USD terms Denmark has a GDP of 330 Billion USD.
In USD terms Finland has a GDP of 276 Billion USD.
In USD terms Ireland has a GDP of 183 Billion USD.

However most economists agree that out GDP as a reflection of the real economy is overstated by at least 20% due to multinationals moving money through Ireland. So our Real GDP would be somewhat closer to 146 Billion USD.

Now the figures change depending on the measurements used, but in a nutshell the economy's of those country's are about twice the size of ours.

Plus they have a much larger tax base to fund things like public services and the military.

Ireland collects about 34.7% of its supposed GDP in Taxes. Or more like 43% of its real GDP.

Denmark collects over 50% in Taxes.
Finland is more similar to Ireland at 44% of GDP collected in taxes.

Not sure where we would get the money to fund a larger military or new equipment. Especially with such a large portion of our budget going to serving our debpt

sparky42

daithicarr wrote: »

Our economy really isint the same size. according to 2014 figures
In USD terms Denmark has a GDP of 330 Billion USD.
In USD terms Finland has a GDP of 276 Billion USD.
In USD terms Ireland has a GDP of 183 Billion USD.

However most economists agree that out GDP as a reflection of the real economy is overstated by at least 20% due to multinationals moving money through Ireland. So our Real GDP would be somewhat closer to 146 Billion USD.

Now the figures change depending on the measurements used, but in a nutshell the economy's of those country's are about twice the size of ours.

Plus they have a much larger tax base to fund things like public services and the military.

Ireland collects about 34.7% of its supposed GDP in Taxes. Or more like 43% of its real GDP.

Denmark collects over 50% in Taxes.
Finland is more similar to Ireland at 44% of GDP collected in taxes.

Not sure where we would get the money to fund a larger military or new equipment. Especially with such a large portion of our budget going to serving our debpt

Just a correction, but the 183 billion figure is in Euro's not dollars, which changes your figures, particularly as Filand is another Euro country but Denmark isn't. the gap between GDP figures is closer, with Finland only having a marginal difference and Denmark only having about 1/3 larger not half. Also from memory the amount we are spending on debt is actually smaller than what we did in the past comapred to the size of the budget/economy.

daithicarr

You are of course correct, the figures are not the same.

Denmark's GDP was 257 billion EUR in 2014
Finland's GDP was 204 billion EUR in 2014
Irelands GDP was 185 Billion EUR in 2014.

But ours is still over inflated by 20% so still around 148 billion EUR.

Thats 72% of Finland's and 57.6 % of Denmark's. Both of those are a very large difference.

The amount of debt those country's have to service is proportionally smaller too. Finlands debt to GDP ration is 59%, Denmark's is 45%

Ours stands at 110% or 132% if you remove the smoke screen.

I dont see where we could get the money to run a similar sized military as either of those two country's.

BoJack Horseman

daithicarr wrote: »

But ours is still over inflated by 20% so still around 148 billion EUR.
.

What proof have you that Ireland's GDP data is tabulated wrong compared to any other nation?

Surely misreporting such basic economic data wouldn't go unnoticed?

daithicarr

without going into it too deeply as its a discussion more suited to the economics section, it doesnt go unnoticed.

I dont think there is any economist who takes our GDP at face value, its inaccuracy in our case is as widely known as the fact that most the big name multinationals here are mostly here to dodge tax. A lot of people take these things at face value, but anyone with even a passing interest in the economy will quickly notice its not as its presented.

Here are some examples
http://www.finfacts.ie/Irish_finance_news/articleDetail.php?Pfizer-as-Irish-firm-would-swamp-Ireland-s-national-accounts-318

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1028148.shtml

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1028865.shtml

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/brendan-keenan/gdp-or-gnp-its-an-ecumenical-matter-29297060.html

Ren2k7

daithicarr wrote: »

Our economy really isint the same size. according to 2014 figures
In USD terms Denmark has a GDP of 330 Billion USD.
In USD terms Finland has a GDP of 276 Billion USD.
In USD terms Ireland has a GDP of 183 Billion USD.

However most economists agree that out GDP as a reflection of the real economy is overstated by at least 20% due to multinationals moving money through Ireland. So our Real GDP would be somewhat closer to 146 Billion USD.

Now the figures change depending on the measurements used, but in a nutshell the economy's of those country's are about twice the size of ours.

Plus they have a much larger tax base to fund things like public services and the military.

Ireland collects about 34.7% of its supposed GDP in Taxes. Or more like 43% of its real GDP.

Denmark collects over 50% in Taxes.
Finland is more similar to Ireland at 44% of GDP collected in taxes.

Not sure where we would get the money to fund a larger military or new equipment. Especially with such a large portion of our budget going to serving our debpt

And I'm not sure you are getting your figures from:

Data from the International Monetary Fund (2014)


Data from the World Bank (2005–2014)


Data from the CIA World Factbook (1993–2014)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

daithicarr

I am getting them from Euro stat http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

They are in Euro, the figures you are using are in USD and are the GDP PPP which is a different calculation.

Euro stat are the official statistic body for the EU.

Tabnabs

So, does anyone else remember when this thread was about boats?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_tTtlJKZYU

daithicarr

Boats we could never afford

sparky42

daithicarr wrote: »

Boats we could never afford

The Absalon's (particularly in the bare bones config) are easily affordable for Ireland under current budgets if Defence got even 1% of the budget.

BoJack Horseman

A pretty slick Gif of the Absalon..... quite large so didn't embed

http://i.imgur.com/y8dO19I.gif

Tabnabs

Here's an innovative idea from the Canadians. Take an existing ship and convert it into your newest support vessel, using Canadian shipyards, contractors and suppliers.



http://projectresolve.ca/website/#av_section_1

sparky42

Tabnabs wrote: »

Here's an innovative idea from the Canadians. Take an existing ship and convert it into your newest support vessel, using Canadian shipyards, contractors and suppliers.

First thought is that it will take a large amount of ducting work for the exhausts, but yeah for the demands Canada has it makes sense.

BoJack Horseman

Isn't Canada opting for 2 x Berlin class oilers instead?

But yeah, some small freighter may be useful.

Like the US using a freighter hull as the basis for their new landing platform ships

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Isn't Canada opting for 2 x Berlin class oilers instead?

But yeah, some small freighter may be useful.

Like the US using a freighter hull as the basis for their new landing platform ships

Maybe they were suggesting it as a stop gap? When are the Berlin's going to be in service? Don't think they are even started building yet. For Canada I wonde rwould something like the Dutch JSS have been a better choice giving them some more amphib as well as refueling.

Tabnabs

What about a fleet of inshore aircraft carriers?

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

Maybe they were suggesting it as a stop gap? When are the Berlin's going to be in service? Don't think they are even started building yet.

Looks like the contracts are signed to build 2 of them
designated the "Queenston Class"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenston-class_auxiliary_vessel
But a containership is being converted for more immediate use while these are being built

For Canada I wonde rwould something like the Dutch JSS have been a better choice giving them some more amphib as well as refueling.

Yeah I quite like the Karel Doorman .. The Dutch seem mad for these crossover concepts.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Looks like the contracts are signed to build 2 of them
designated the "Queenston Class"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenston-class_auxiliary_vessel
But a containership is being converted for more immediate use while these are being built

Yeah I quite like the Karel Doorman .. The Dutch seem mad for these crossover concepts.

Not sure how the Berlin class provides "Basic Sealift", I mena to me that's a bit of a stretch, but given the state of the RCN they should be happy with them once they are in service.

Fro the Dutch, like the Danes they do seem to be looking at what demands there are and how to meet them. Wonder if some of the other EU navies might look at something liek this for when they need to replace some of their supply ships, it would give them some Amphib as well. I wonder if they can use the cargo bay as extra stores/fuel storage when not in use as a Amphib?

sparky42

Tabnabs wrote: »

Here's an innovative idea from the Canadians. Take an existing ship and convert it into your newest support vessel, using Canadian shipyards, contractors and suppliers.

Going back to this, seems that in following on from the Canadian elections, the shipyards are lobbying against each other to prevent this contract going ahead... Seems the two yards that have upgraded for future ship orders are trying to stop another yard from doing this work.