3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

The cap on speed is really odd. why would they include that?

salmocab wrote: »

As someone with nothing more than a passing interest my reading would be that’s more of a minimum top speed if that makes sense? As in its top speed must be at least x not must be x

6. The vessel will be no more no more than thirty (30) tonnes at full load displacement. Its Length overall between twelve (12) and fifteen (15) metres, the vessels beam will be four (4) to six (6) meters and the vessels draft should not exceed two (2) meters. The vessel will have a cruising speed of fourteen (14) knots and a maximum speed of sixteen (16) knots. These vessels will have an endurance of forty-eight (48) hours and minimum operational range of two hundred and seventy (270) Nautical miles.

It doesn't say max speed must not exceed 16kn. Good point.
It does however specify stability at very low speeds, which would rule out many of the speedy types.

The vessel is to provide for fuel efficient operation at all speeds. The vessels should be capable of operating at a low speed of two (2) to four (4) knots for a prolonged period. Fuel consumption graphs at normal operational speed (14 Knots) should be included.

salmocab wrote: »

As someone with nothing more than a passing interest my reading would be that’s more of a minimum top speed if that makes sense? As in its top speed must be at least x not must be x

It says maximum speed of sixteen knots. That's fairly clear.

source wrote: »

It says maximum speed of sixteen knots. That's fairly clear.

Well yeah but my point was they could easily have just worded it badly. I’m sure ultimately anyone bidding will get a lot of real technical data.

donvito99 wrote: »

Is the max speed requirement a roundabout way of saying we want a smaller/quieter/more efficient engine, or is it a way of excluding certain products to favour another?

I'd say more of "we aren't looking for cigarette boats here we just want to get from a to b".
In coastal waters that's plenty of speed for a 15m heavy boat.

Thats what I find odd.

They don't want a PT boat, they want a glorified launch with inshore operational capacity, but they want it armed?

Surely you either have a fast patrol boat with 20mm or HMGs, or you have a ponderous dive boat with maybe a weapons locker. Seems strange to put a cannon mount on a service boat.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Thats what I find odd.

They don't want a PT boat, they want a glorified launch with inshore operational capacity, but they want it armed?

Surely you either have a fast patrol boat with 20mm or HMGs, or you have a ponderous dive boat with maybe a weapons locker. Seems strange to put a cannon mount on a service boat.

Where are you seeing cannon mount? I'm assuming a couple of GPMGs

Well I think it's a great idea acquiring these....strength in depth and a jolly useful addition to the fleet. Looking forward to seeing developments on the pending MRV in due course....

Larbre34 wrote: »

So longer term (manpower issues aside, but not at all forgotten), we are looking at

1 x MRV (100m+ sealift, command, patrol, disaster relief)
4 x P60s
2 x P50s
2 x Lake Class Kiwi 55m green water PVs
4 x 15m inshore/port security launches and diving vessels

P31, P41, P42 all to be decommissioned by 2025 or so?

Its not too shabby, if they could come up with a coherent plan for retention of service personnel, as well as a strong reserve component with opportunities for active service at sea.

For the wider DF, I'd love to see them getting into formal relationships with third level colleges for the establishment of an ROTC and RDF recruitment. We must find a way to embed the DF in the Community as a pillar and as an inspiration to young people for State and lifelong volunteer service.

I see from the General Staff submission to the Commission on Defence, they are pushing for more involement in Intelligence, cybersecurity and cybermeddling, and also pointing out the requirement for Sonar and radar, and the lack of capability to intercede in submarine activity near Transatlantic fibre runs.

Failure to provide a credible security deterent to Cyber attacks and physical attacks on infrastructure will become an issue for govt when it looks to attract more FDI here, in the same way lack of infrastructure, political instability and corruption hinders developement in many parts of the middle east and Africa.

Whether we go down the road of accquiring a credible Anti-submarine solution, or bolting on AS capability to our existing assets is one for debate, but could see some capability uplift in the future.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

That's a damned good idea. Might be possible to upgade the P90's or spec in the appropriate hardware into the new vessels coming on stream I'd like to see if a small VLS module could be retrofitted to the P90's as well and generally upgrade the whole fleet over time to make it a bit move lethal.

We don’t have any P90s in service, and the idea of fitting VLS is a non starter IMO, they are cheap and cheerful OPVs, not corvettes or frigates.

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Adding a VLS and all its attendant control systems, would require a serious uplift in the P60 Power generation units,and a complete redesign of cabling, watertight bulkheads, insertion of armour around the VLS citadel, and the combined additional weight might have implications on ships operations.

However, adding Sonar and updating Radar to provide a networked picture might add to the capability, if other A/S assets were added to the mix.

I wouldn't bother paying any attention to jonnybigwallet. Best to just ignore.

Larbre34 wrote: »

So longer term (manpower issues aside, but not at all forgotten), we are looking at

1 x MRV (100m+ sealift, command, patrol, disaster relief)
4 x P60s
2 x P50s
2 x Lake Class Kiwi 55m green water PVs
4 x 15m inshore/port security launches and diving vessels

P31, P41, P42 all to be decommissioned by 2025 or so?

Its not too shabby, if they could come up with a coherent plan for retention of service personnel, as well as a strong reserve component with opportunities for active service at sea.

For the wider DF, I'd love to see them getting into formal relationships with third level colleges for the establishment of an ROTC and RDF recruitment. We must find a way to embed the DF in the Community as a pillar and as an inspiration to young people for State and lifelong volunteer service.

There are numerous other smaller craft also in the ownership of the naval service.
Creidne and Táilte are Sail training yachts, mostly used for navigation training of naval cadets when they are not in College. It also teaches them how to work aboard the type of vessel they may encounter and have to commandeer during anti-drug operations, from boarding in heavy sea to keeping it under command while returning to port.
There is a wide range of RHIB type boats, not usually seen aboard ship, ranging from 5.4m Avons which were once used as boarding boats on the P20s, but are now small enough to be trailered anywhere they are needed behind a 4x4.
There are also RHIB that are larger than the standard Boarding boat, that have specialised uses, at least one of which has a GPMG mount there the towing point would be up front.
Then there are rubber oddities that seat about 30, and are neither rhib nor barge. They do make an ideal diving platform though.
In short, on top of the larger ships there are a large range of smaller craft to permit the NS to operate in any of the smaller harbours and inlets around the state should they so desire.

Larbre34 wrote: »

So longer term (manpower issues aside, but not at all forgotten), we are looking at

1 x MRV (100m+ sealift, command, patrol, disaster relief)
4 x P60s
2 x P50s
2 x Lake Class Kiwi 55m green water PVs
4 x 15m inshore/port security launches and diving vessels

P31, P41, P42 all to be decommissioned by 2025 or so?

Its not too shabby, if they could come up with a coherent plan for retention of service personnel, as well as a strong reserve component with opportunities for active service at sea.

For the wider DF, I'd love to see them getting into formal relationships with third level colleges for the establishment of an ROTC and RDF recruitment. We must find a way to embed the DF in the Community as a pillar and as an inspiration to young people for State and lifelong volunteer service.

NSR can apply to go to sea onboard an operational unit, once they have pre quals complete and they can give the time. They are very welcome to come out and train next to their fulltime colleagues. This has been in practice for years.

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Failure to provide a credible security deterent to Cyber attacks and physical attacks on infrastructure will become an issue for govt when it looks to attract more FDI here, in the same way lack of infrastructure, political instability and corruption hinders developement in many parts of the middle east and Africa.

Is the defence forces best placed for cyber defense do you think? It seems a terrible fit to me, apart from their own networks

Alkers wrote: »

Is the defence forces best placed for cyber defense do you think? It seems a terrible fit to me, apart from their own networks

Where else would you suggest that it go?