Interesting articles

donvito99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397965#Comment_119397965

It is misleading - it isn't being launched and it is not being built, as the headline goads, to do a job that the NS cannot do.

The headline that doesn't sell papers should read "Royal Navy plans undersea cables monitoring ship".

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119397954#Comment_119397954

They might upset the cork fishermen

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399770#Comment_119399770

The Cork fishermen who have no problem whatsoever fishing in Iceland or the UK EEZ? Worth looking at an AIS track of one of the larger Cork boats sometime. Hypocrite doesn't cover it...

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399781#Comment_119399781

Yep, in my experience fishermen of any nationality would happily strip the ocean while complaining about how everyone else is overfishing. However I doubt the RN will care much since we won’t do it.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399847#Comment_119399847

Strip it of fish, and then start selling the sand on the seabed.

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119399897#Comment_119399897

They have big repayments on them mercs

Larbre34

But sure can't the RV Tom Crean do the same for Ireland?

Anyway, the whole notion of building a ship to sit in one place to do one job is daft. The EU and UK should get together to fund a system of monitoring rigs or underwater detectors like SOSUS to protect the cables.

The UK already has HMS Enterprise and theres no way they'd ever permanently assign that to one task, such as this.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119400399#Comment_119400399

Tom is good, but it doesn't have the diving support tech you'd need (which we already identified we need).

ancientmariner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119400851#Comment_119400851

TC is a sophisticated Survey and research vessel which has a crew which includes 12 or more scientists. She can operate an ROV and AUV's, deploy and recover buoys and other marine sensors. She can deploy to 4000m or 13,200 ft. She will have a range of UW search sounders and multibeam equipment. She also has Dynamic Positioning and can also be used as a training platform at sea. It might be worthwhile for the Navy to familiarise key personnel by getting training time on board. A 52 metre sturdy ship with A-Frame can handle side scan sonar and most underwater equipment types including those required to "look at " cables.

roadmaster

I believe Tom Crean is available to the Naval service and other state bodies.

In regards to checking cables with Modern teck can the gear that is needed for the montioring not be just bought in modualar form and placed in 20ft containers on the back of any of ships in the fleet and lifted on and off depending on the mission.

The US/EU probaly know The movements of the russian subs so when they believe they are heading for the cables , Our friends can give us a heads up and we can throw the containers with the gear on the back of the ship and head out to survey or simply take tom crean when needed

ancientmariner

My only experience of bottom side scan sonar search was with P31 at the time of the Air India Crash. We were joined by a middle aged USN team, all in civilians. They installed a large A-Frame aft and a large winch on the F.Dk. They had a monitoring and recording set up in the hangar and Briefing room. They carried two 3metre fish and after a leaking incident at sea bed level which required a full reel in and replace and repair, we had some weeks of plotting the debris field which at times was so clear as to be photographic. Equipment of this nature is transportable worldwide but needs certain ship adaptions and power to make it work. P31 was a powerful tow vessel at 6,800 HP and had no difficulty to keep the fish swimming at the correct height over the sea bed. I'm sure TC will be the ticket.

Dohvolle

Tender launched earlier in the week to fit multi beam echo sounder on the 4 P60s. There had been an earlier consultation as how they could be incorporated into the ships, so plan is now to fit them in the coming years during their dry docking.

Public RFT - MULTIBEAM ECHO SOUNDER (eu-supply.com)

A1.1 OVERVIEW OF MBES REQUIREMENT

It is proposed to introduce the Multi-Beam Echo Sounder (MBES) capability to the Naval Service (NS) on the four P60-class vessels. This will fulfil requirements in the Defence White Paper 2015. The NS has undertaken a feasibility study with a consultant to investigate the range of suitable systems to deliver NS requirements. The equipment must give the NS an enhanced capacity to locate and to profile obstructions and wrecks on the seabed. The system will be multi-beam. It will have a 3D sea-floor/object modelling function and a contour mapping function. It should provide the NS with the ability to detect vessels or objects submerged in the water column above the seabed.

This tender is for the supply, installation, commissioning and training of a Multi-Beam Echo Sounder for up to four (4) Irish Naval Ships. This will be a new installation and will not be replacing an existing system. It is intended that the installations will take place in 2023 and 2024 with a possible extension into 2025. Tenderers will be required to take total ownership of all aspects of the design, certification, implementation, commissioning, training, supports and project management of their proposed solution on behalf of Naval Service, in a self-sufficient fashion. The installation of equipment will be carried out during the ships’ scheduled drydock periods in Cork.

In conjunction with an external design consultant, the NS has recently undertaken a feasibility study on the structural assessments and positional integration of MBES transducer, notably the hull mounted transducer was a key consideration in the study. Several methods of installing the hull mounted transducers, including Gondola, Blister, Retractable/Hoist, Drop Keel and Flush Mount were investigated with comparing the expected levels of transducer performance with their impact upon ship performance and internal configuration. Only flush mount and blister mount transducers are considered suitable.

As part of the Structural Integration a motions study was undertaken to assess the propensity of the forebody of the ship to emerge in typical operational sea-states. Given the relatively shallow draught of the ship there is a higher probability of the forefoot emerging.

For this reason, it is essential that the transducer is located beyond above mentioned region. The following points were noted from the structural assessment:

1. The bow thruster tunnel has the potential to drawn in aerated water when the ship is operating in higher sea states. In the Deep Load Arrival and Departure conditions the top of the tunnel is approximately 900 and 1500mm below waterline, respectively.
2. Going beyond 1/3rd of the ships length aft is discouraged by the OEMs due to the increasingly turbulent flow of water.

The position and installation method of the transducer will require careful planning by the vendor and will require the best demands of the Multibeam Echosounder System offered to be balanced against the core attributes of the ship, particularly speed and range.

Therefore, the feasibility study concluded that a Flush mounting Arrangement would be the most desirable choice by the INS with respect to keep the ships existing performance characteristics however, in addition it was observed the hull form of the P60 class in the forward third of the ship provides limited locations for the MBES Structural Integration.

With reference to the ships General Arrangement the ship has been compartmentalised into areas where a Transducer might be mounted.

Three potential locations for the transducer are proposed by the INS for this project.

• Location 1 - Transducer located in cofferdam between Frames 36 and 38.

• Location 2 – Transducer located in/below fuel tank on/around Frame 45.

• Location 3 – Transducer located in/below grey water tank on/around Frame 55.

Exact location for the transducer arrangement must be based on interoperability with existing equipment. More details on the feasibility study can be shared upon request.

jonnybigwallet

Great news and a good find Doh! I wonder will they also be looking at other mods: EG fitting an enhanced radar mast as catered for in the original design. Fitting enhanced defensive measures. IE AA/ AS missiles and enhancement / replacement of the Rhinemettal Weapons, ( as recommended by more knowledgeable posters than meself).

I hope so. We might as well make the best of what we've got while awaiting arrival of the proposed additions to the fleet.

ancientmariner

We must take on board that MBES units are at their forte in mapping sea bed features and obstructions. We are familiar with all the seabed data on Facebook pages including outlines of wrecks. Tracking a target for bearing, classification, and range as a principal feature will require a version that is adjustable to a few nodes when contact is established. There is a lot of data available on the Net on use and mounting MBES but little revealed on using it as an ASW sonar. The TC would be useful as a training platform until we achieve our own standard.

ancientmariner

Noting that there is a cross type (P60's) upgrade. These are opportunities for further role enhancements and potential life extension for the ship.

An RN type 23 frigate, designed to be multirole, has just completed a number of LifeEx periods with BAE systems. She was built 1990 and commissioned in 1992.

The work briefly was improvements in Bridge, Crew accommodation and messes, swap out for two diesel generators, improvements in navigation, communications and Defence systems, attention to hull, engine room, and propulsion train including propellers. These are 30 year old ships and are for world wide deployment.

Unless we can get new tonnage we must adapt with what we have and improve range of fleet capabilities. We must apply a general policy of DETECT and INTERVENE across the spectrum. Discussion with BAE or Konigsberg might be apt.

sparky42

From another forum I ran into a random bit of info, with a suggestion that there was some sort of talk between the US and Dublin about S 2 Trackers back in 1977 for Fisheries Patrol? Now obviously it never went anywhere but Anyone ever hear any tall tales?

https://archive.org/details/StateDeptcable1977-39873/mode/1up

Dohvolle

Interesting.

How we ended up then with Beech Kingair 200s around the same time is a mystery.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119420709#Comment_119420709

Totally different animals, assuming they had been fully fitted even without weapons our patrol capabilities would have been on a different level. Like I said not sure was it ever a thing or just a passing discussion, just a random What If?

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119420709#Comment_119420709

The Americans told the DOD how much the trackers would cost and DOD asked have you anything cheaper

Dohvolle

I recon the fact the S2 was nuclear capable sent some elements of Irish society dashing for the rosary beads in terror.

Because, in AFRI land, Nuclear capable means nuclear armed.

Larbre34

https://news.sky.com/story/uks-ability-to-train-fast-jet-pilots-in-crisis-due-to-faulty-aircraft-and-instructors-shortage-leaked-documents-suggest-12666275

Not an Irish story, but an interesting example of the scale of challenges facing volunteer Militaries internationally, that is reflected in Ireland when it comes to the retention of highly skilled personnel.

Dohvolle

Their issue seems to be the weakness of the Hawk T2 though, rather than a retention problem. The type should have been retired years ago. It's an aircraft even the most senior serving officer (Air Chief Marshal Wigston) would have learnt on. They tried to replace them during the Blair years, with T-50 or the M-346, but BAE refused to design a new aircraft, instead holding the UK govt to ransom with a slightly upgraded 40 year old airframe.

When all the Tucs had to be scrapped, and Texans & Grobs replacing both them and the T1 in the flying training role with no obvious plans to replace the Hawk in the foreseeable future, something is bound to break.

Their Multi-engine trainer, the HS Dominie and SKA 200 were also recently retired, replaced with just a handful of Embraer Phenoms.

The fear is civilianising flying training has failed to deliver to expectations, and the RAF no longer have access to the spare aircraft they once had to keep pilots current.

roadmaster

Why have they mot just bought rights to something like the M346 and build it in the UK like they will do with the Puma replacement

Dohvolle

There is a UK mentality that rejects buying anything not British made. It's been their biggest weakness over the years, militarily. It took H&K fixing the SA80 after 30 years before it was right. Typhoon could have been Rafale but they had to go their own way and drag their partners with them, same with their Naval program, the newer Destroyers are all in trouble, mechanically, the new frigates are way behind schedule. If they had partnered with a NATO ally all these issues would have been ironed out long ago.

Larbre34

Yeah, when you put it that way....

I was aware of many of those programme level issues over the last 30 to 40 years, but when you put them all together and see no fundamental systematic response from the MoD, its clearly a mentality failing.

Lorddrakul

Interesting, non-hysterical article here on the likely successor to the SR-71, known as Project Mayhem.

From Popular Mechanics...

Everything We Know About the Air Force's Secret Plan to Develop a Hypersonic Bomber

After Russia launched a nearly unstoppable missile, America is hitting back with a bomber that can travel at Mach 10.

Dohvolle

But the SR-71 isn't a bomber. That would be like a B1-B Lancer or B2 Spirit successor (already identified as the B-21 Raider)?

This is about the SR-72, a Strategic Reconnaissance aircraft.

It was going grand until a test pilot took it a bit too fast and it exploded in mid air. He was lucky to survive with his life intact, let alone his career. Still shocked they let Naval Captains fly at that age, he should have been piloting a desk as a Vice Admiral, like some of his Fighter weapon school classmates, at this stage..

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119458040#Comment_119458040

But then they wouldnt have made 1.3 billion and counting on a budget of 170m

roadmaster

Its a good job the state doesnt owe any brickies any cash espically 40k!!

https://www.newstalk.com/news/defence-forces-soldier-leaves-dream-role-for-better-pay-1372681

jonnybigwallet

Very interesting piece that! Thanks for posting.