Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

24567…86

Comments

  • #52
    cranefly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 258 ✭✭cranefly


    they were built by bae for the royal brunei navy, but were not commissioned when i heard about them, that was a few years back, so by now they might be in brunei waters, you can get a look at them by going on you tube and typing walney walks 14.


  • #53
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    cranefly wrote: »
    they were built by bae for the royal brunei navy, but were not commissioned when i heard about them, that was a few years back, so by now they might be in brunei waters, you can get a look at them by going on you tube and typing walney walks 14.

    Ah right... Found them.

    File:Nakhoda_Ragam_class_OPV.jpg

    According to Wiki they're still there as of last May anyway, for sale by the German Lurrsen yard.


  • #54
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Were they the ones the Brazilians recently bought?


  • #55
    roundymac
    Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Were they the ones the Brazilians recently bought?
    The ones they bought were for Trinidad and Tobago originally AFAIK.


  • #56
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,457 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Daftness deleted.


  • #57
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    Looks like the Navy is getting a new ship. According to the Chief of Staff it will arrive Autumn 2013 and will be handed over to the Navy early 2014. They also plan to lay a keel for a further vessel later this year.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=5582&d=1296065705

    Nice to see the fleet being renewed but it doesn't offer any new capability.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Where is it being built?


  • #59
    Donny5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    More importantly, what's she going to be called?


  • #60
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    No name decided yet. Built in the U.K. Pretty cheap at €50 million.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_Marine_OPV


    General characteristics
    Type: Offshore patrol vessel
    Displacement: 1,900 tonnes
    Length: 90 metres
    Beam: 14 metres
    Draft: 3.8 metres
    Propulsion: Two Wärtsilä medium speed diesel engines (5,440 kW each) 450 kW bow thruster

    Speed: Baseline speed 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph) Economical speed 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)

    Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)[1]
    Endurance: 21 days
    Boats and landing craft carried: 2 x RHIB (8m)
    Capacity: 3 x 20 ft sea container, 1 x 5 ton, 9.56m crane aft
    Complement: 44 + up to 10 trainees
    Sensors and processing systems: Fire Control:Electro Optical
    Armament: 1 x 76 mm Oto Melara cannon 2 x 20mm Rheinmetall cannon Mountings for heavy MGs & GPMGs

    Aircraft carried: None
    Aviation facilities: UAV only


  • #62
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    aindriu80 wrote: »
    Looks like the Navy is getting a new ship. According to the Chief of Staff it will arrive Autumn 2013 and will be handed over to the Navy early 2014. They also plan to lay a keel for a further vessel later this year.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=5582&d=1296065705

    Nice to see the fleet being renewed but it doesn't offer any new capability.

    It offers considerable new capability. Its design will include 3 spots for 20 foot Containers, which as anyone who has seen a DROPS will tell you, is what everything in the DF fits in these days, from hospitals to decompression tanks, to USVs. The powerplant too will be far more efficient than anything currently in use, utilising a diesel electric system. It will also be fitted for Air Search Radar, though it will not be fitted until after delivery. It will also have spare accomodation for trainees, something which only Eithne has at present.
    These vessels, at 90m will be the largest in the fleet, and with deeper draught, will also be far more stable than the P50 class.
    It is being built in Appledore, Devon by Babcock, at the same yard that built both Roisin and Niamh. The mast design in the above render is not what is being delivered.

    This is the current version.
    PV90Draft.jpg
    This is a photo of FOCNS laying the keel last may.
    0.84?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg


  • #63
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    goldie fish wrote: »
    It offers considerable new capability. Its design will include 3 spots for 20 foot Containers, which as anyone who has seen a DROPS will tell you, is what everything in the DF fits in these days, from hospitals to decompression tanks, to USVs. The powerplant too will be far more efficient than anything currently in use, utilising a diesel electric system. It will also be fitted for Air Search Radar, though it will not be fitted until after delivery. It will also have spare accomodation for trainees, something which only Eithne has at present.
    These vessels, at 90m will be the largest in the fleet, and with deeper draught, will also be far more stable than the P50 class.
    It is being built in Appledore, Devon by Babcock, at the same yard that built both Roisin and Niamh. The mast design in the above render is not what is being delivered.

    It will certainly be a big improvement in what we have at the moment but it is not a frigate or a transport ship. I read on another board that the price of the new british carrier is equivalent to having 150 of the new P61. Its no major policy for us to get a few new ships. Even more so when you consider whats Irish territorial waters are worth. Still good to see it !

    I'm glad they replaced that mast in the picture as it doesn't look right.


  • #64
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    We need neither frigate nor transport ship.


  • #65
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    goldie fish wrote: »
    We need neither frigate nor transport ship.

    Both are a fantastic capability.


  • #66
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    aindriu80 wrote: »
    Both are a fantastic capability.

    Which we neither need nor can afford.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    goldie fish wrote: »
    We need neither frigate nor transport ship.

    100% Agreed!
    We have really no need for a dedicated sea lift capability.
    Anything we need transported we can send on commercial shipping rather than have a white elephant waiting for a once in 10 years mission.
    The container spots on this vessel will most likely be used for palletised mission systems meaning cost savings in the long run as rather than permanently install equipment on 1 vessel, the equipment containers can be shared amongst the fleet on an as required basis.

    As for frigates, again it would be a nice capability to have some SSM's and ASW and SAM capability in our navy, but there is absolutely no need given the mission of our Navy.
    The Irish navy is tasked with patrolling and policing our terretorial waters rather than having an active defence posture against a perceived threat.
    It is important that our vessels have a good sensor suite to detect small boats in the often high seas of the N.A....
    It is not important that the vessel is armed with Harpoon/exocet or similar to sink those same boats when inspection and policing is the mission.
    It is important to have the capability to place accurate and effective ordnance on target or more usually in the policing role, across the bow.
    An electro/optically layed gun does this a hell of a lot cheaper than any missile system ever developed.

    If there is one thing I would like to see an increase in for the navy it would be ship based helicopters and vessels capable of operating them.
    The added sensor range, rescue capability and even attack capability this would add to vessels while not vastly increasing the price of the vessel itself(Although a suitable helicopter fleet would not be cheap!) It could and would be a worthwhile investment.

    OPV90 sized vessels with a heli deck and a good sensor suite are perfectly suited to the Navy's current and future missions.
    And if the projected EPV goes ahead too the transport capability will be somewhat available too.

    EDITPersonally I think something akin to the Austal MRV 80 could offer the Irish navy some fantastic capability for the price, including even the transport role.
    Although given Austal's propensity for building immediate rust buckets we would need some penalty clauses in that contract! haha


  • #68
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Considering these ships are bigger than existing INS vessels, are there sufficient officers and crew to man them?

    And can they afford to run both engines while at sea...?


  • #69
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    Considering these ships are bigger than existing INS vessels, are there sufficient officers and crew to man them?

    And can they afford to run both engines while at sea...?

    As far as I am aware the Emer is due to be decommissioned when this ship enters service(And the Aoife when the 2nd OPV90 enters service)freeing up her crew and I think the crewing requirements are similar for the Emer/Aoife/Aisling as it is for the OPV90's.
    As the number of ships in commission will likely be static as will the crewing requirements,there won't really be a need for increased recruitment its more a fleet renewal than an expansion.

    As for the fuel.....Surely a bita green diesel will go a long way towards saving a few bob ;)


  • #70
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Customs are seizing green diesel every day. Maybe a deal could be done....
    Seriously though, the new powerplant layout will allow for full cruising on just one engine, contributng greatly to fuel economy.
    Helicopters, and a deck to operate them would be nuce to have, but experience shows for the majority of time irish ships are on patrol, seastates are outside the minimum required for safe heli ops. So your expensive rotary wing asset and crew will spend the majority of its time stuck on deck. Better off with a rotary wing UAV capability, should suitable craft become available in future.

    The EPV proposed is an extension of the OPV design, with increased size to allow patrolling in all sea states in the Atlantic. With this increased size comes more space. The NS have proposed this extra space could be used to carry vehicles and equipment overseas if required. "Steel is cheap and air is free" was what the current FOCNS said.

    Wouldnt touch austals idea with a bargepole sized prodding stick.


  • #71
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Better off with a rotary wing UAV capability, should suitable craft become available in future.
    Actually a very good point that completely slipped me by when I was formulating my own thoughts.
    And given that there a current armed Heli UAV systems available on the said 20ft container basis, one that is easily added to the OPV90


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Wouldnt touch austals idea with a bargepole sized prodding stick.
    Agreed, which is why I pointed their propensity towards rust.
    I do feel that the concept is a good one and one that is gaining a lot of acceptence worldwide albeit with forces that operate in much calmer environments.
    I'd like to see what a Babcock adaptation of the concept would be.
    The appeal to my mind though is lots of capability and flexibility built in to an affordable design.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Which we neither need nor can afford.


    We can afford them. Ships pay for themselves. No matter how much is spent on a ship you get it back. Even with the mess in the U.K and the lack of a catapult on their new carriers (laugh) they will still get a return on the new metal.

    Looks at how much we spent on the banking system. €10bn is small fry.
    goldie fish wrote: »
    We need neither frigate nor transport ship.

    We can do with the capability. They wouldn't be long being pushed into missions all around the world for us. For one thing we could have went to the north pole with a decent ship.
    banie01 wrote: »
    100% Agreed!
    We have really no need for a dedicated sea lift capability.
    Anything we need transported we can send on commercial shipping rather than have a white elephant waiting for a once in 10 years mission

    .......cut

    The country should be able to do the task themselves. Sending equipment over on a commercial ship is laughable ! The mission has to be carried out by the Defence Forces not civilians.


  • #73
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    banie01 wrote: »
    As far as I am aware the Emer is due to be decommissioned when this ship enters service(And the Aoife when the 2nd OPV90 enters service)freeing up her crew and I think the crewing requirements are similar for the Emer/Aoife/Aisling as it is for the OPV90's.
    As the number of ships in commission will likely be static as will the crewing requirements,there won't really be a need for increased recruitment its more a fleet renewal than an expansion.

    As for the fuel.....Surely a bita green diesel will go a long way towards saving a few bob ;)

    I've been told that the new ships have a bigger crewing requirement and there will be a higher NS rank to ensure the skipper is senior to all military personnel aboard.

    I am also under the impression that the INS is badly hemorrhaging experienced people and this is an upcoming issue for them with these new ships coming on-stream in the next few years.


  • #74
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    aindriu80 wrote: »


    The country should be able to do the task themselves. Sending equipment over on a commercial ship is laughable ! The mission has to be carried out by the Defence Forces not civilians.

    I disagree with the ''laughable''!
    Is it laughable that even the US navy uses commercial shipping for material movement and supply?
    Military Sealift command uses predominantly civilian owned(Some of the tonnage is owned outright) and crewed ships under lease to the government
    Is it laughable that the RFA is manned by civilians on the same basis and while currently the fleet is owned by the RN there are moves afoot to move to a civilian owned model?
    Apart from the major navies assault ships and similar which are really for combat landings and supply,(A capability I fail to see an Irish need for) the vast majority of naval transport is undertaken by civilian ships.

    What is the pressing Irish need for a transport capability that requires a dedicated military capability?


  • #75
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    aindriu80 wrote: »

    The country should be able to do the task themselves. Sending equipment over on a commercial ship is laughable ! The mission has to be carried out by the Defence Forces not civilians.

    Historically this is exactly what nations have done. Remember the Falklands War? Here's the list to remind you if not http://www.naval-history.net/F22mnships.htm

    They don't call it the Merchant Navy for no reason...

    The Point=Class sealift ships would be an excellent modern illustration.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-class_sealift_ship


  • #76
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    I've been told that the new ships have a bigger crewing requirement and there will be a higher NS rank to ensure the skipper is senior to all military personnel aboard.

    I am also under the impression that the INS is badly hemorrhaging experienced people and this is an upcoming issue for them with these new ships coming on-stream in the next few years.

    Yes agreed that the INS is losing experienced crew constantly, but as to the crewing requirements.
    Currently the Emer class have a complement of 46(5 officers and 41 enlisted) vs the OPV90's complement of 44 plus space for 10 trainees.


  • #77
    Garzard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Garzard


    aindriu80 wrote: »
    Both are a fantastic capability.
    A large support type ship is apparently under consideration.


  • #78
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    Historically this is exactly what nations have done. Remember the Falklands War?

    They don't call it the Merchant Navy for no reason...

    Merchant Navy being under the Navy and no doubt warships to go with them. If we don't have a merchant navy the only logical choice is a navy transport ship of some description. A landing craft on in and helideck would be very welcome.

    We can't just send a civilian ship to a conflict area. They provide zero capability/protection for the Defence Forces bar basically getting there.

    I seen lots about the Falklands War and it was a proper disaster. They lost a few ships and most of them were without armaments. They were damn slow at unloading their cargo too. Another reason why they were a waste of time.

    I disagree with the ''laughable''!
    Is it laughable that even the US navy uses commercial shipping for material movement and supply?
    Military Sealift command uses predominantly civilian owned(Some of the tonnage is owned outright) and crewed ships under lease to the government
    Is it laughable that the RFA is manned by civilians on the same basis and while currently the fleet is owned by the RN there are moves afoot to move to a civilian owned model?
    Apart from the major navies assault ships and similar which are really for combat landings and supply,(A capability I fail to see an Irish need for) the vast majority of naval transport is undertaken by civilian ships.

    What is the pressing Irish need for a transport capability that requires a dedicated military capability?

    The U.S ships everything around the globe in all shapes and forms but has specific ships for conflict zones and wouldn't rely on civilian ships when in combat.

    There is no urgent capability for the Irish navy bar a brown water navy but if Ireland wants to meet the world head on they really need capable ships. Money just doesn't come into it when you take into account the entire picture, just the folks back home couldn't be arsed and things are tight.


  • #79
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    Garzard wrote: »
    A large support type ship is apparently under consideration.

    I think thats great news if true. If it seen the light of day, was large and was a support ship it would just highlight what a good investment ships are. €50 million is absolutely peanuts when you look at what we spend on stuff.


  • #80
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Garzard wrote: »
    A large support type ship is apparently under consideration.
    aindriu80 wrote: »
    I think thats great news if true. If it seen the light of day, was large and was a support ship it would just highlight what a good investment ships are. €50 million is absolutely peanuts when you look at what we spend on stuff.

    That would be the EPV(Extended Patrol Vessel) of a @4000tons and an @€;90mln cost if it goes ahead.
    It would really be an enlarged OPV with more container space, better seakeeping and more deck space.
    It was discussed here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056160359
    With great discussion from some folks on why we needed frigates and destroyers.:rolleyes:

    And now we also need combat zone capable transport ships for our upcoming visits to the north pole....
    So that would add an Ice breaking requirement to the mix, aswell as transport and combat!

    I'm really starting to see this as a Walter Mitty thread!


  • #81
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    When it comes to military sealift, and the use of dedicated merchant vessels, worth pointing out that the RN has recently sold off its "Point" class ships, as it hadn't enough use for them. And this is while it is fighting in numerous wars around the world.

    So Aindriu created a thread discussing what was already covered in another thread where he was told that we didn't need the type of ship he wanted?

    Why go over it all again? why not just add to the original thread, particularly when there is nothing new to add?

    Why?
    Why?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Bumpity bump.


  • #83
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    goldie fish wrote: »
    When it comes to military sealift, and the use of dedicated merchant vessels, worth pointing out that the RN has recently sold off its "Point" class ships, as it hadn't enough use for them. And this is while it is fighting in numerous wars around the world.

    So Aindriu created a thread discussing what was already covered in another thread where he was told that we didn't need the type of ship he wanted?

    Why go over it all again? why not just add to the original thread, particularly when there is nothing new to add?

    Why?
    Why?

    Because....
    aindriu80 wrote: »
    We can do with the capability.
    They wouldn't be long being pushed into missions all around the world for us.
    For one thing we could have went to the north pole with a decent ship.
    .
    With our need for worldwide capability to support our far flung commitments to empire....I mean peace keeping!
    and our North pole ambitions.....
    We need a strong fleet, we should plan on dominance of the seas and a decisive Mahanian battle to ensure our fleet does indeed pay for itself!
    And sure frigates are the new Dreadnoughts!
    Our need to be able able to meet any future threat or as Aindriu put it or need to meet the world head on...
    aindriu80 wrote: »
    but if Ireland wants to meet the world head on they really need capable ships. Money just doesn't come into it when you take into account the entire picture, just the folks back home couldn't be arsed and things are tight.
    We quite simply need to buy these ships!
    Along with at least a few submarines and maybe some helicopter assault ships too!
    Sod the money! They pay for themselves in the added security alone!


  • #84
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Those submarines will pay for themselves in time......what is the daily rate for hire of subs anyway?


  • #85
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    banie01 wrote: »
    And now we also need combat zone capable transport ships for our upcoming visits to the north pole....
    So that would add an Ice breaking requirement to the mix, aswell as transport and combat!

    I'm really starting to see this as a Walter Mitty thread!

    Don't really know what the walter mitty part is. Do we really need smaller ships and concentrate on fishing? Get real and grow up.

    banie01, Your post are childish and a chore to respond to. I'm not going to respond any further.

    Goldie fish, I am only adding my 2 cents worth. The fact that this subject is so limited only highlights the limitations we imposed on ourselves. The new ship is expect Q3 2013, I will be glad to see it.


  • #86
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    goldie fish wrote: »
    Bumpity bump.

    ??

    The old search function is fierce handy :eek:


  • #87
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    We didn't impose limitations on ourselves, we are just realistic about our requirements. Having been on both Frigates and OPVs over the years I can tell you which one I would prefer to be stuck on in an atlantic storm, and it doesn't begin with F. Without having its entire useful space taken up with weaponry thats only used on exercise, electronics or redundant powerplants that exist only in case the ship is attacked, you leave more space for a reasonable level of crew comfort. And if you want people at 100% this is very important. Our crew accomodation is more like the standard for merchant seamen, who live and work aboard ship for often a year at a time.

    We don't NEED either of the things you suggested, and you have not provided any logical reason why we might do.


  • #88
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    aindriu80 wrote: »
    Don't really know what the walter mitty part is. Do we really need smaller ships and concentrate on fishing? Get real and grow up.

    banie01, Your post are childish and a chore to respond to. I'm not going to respond any further.

    Feel free to put me on ignore.
    But just to echo Goldie's sentiment, apart from expressing a desire for the INS to have bigger better ships.
    You have done nothing to outline why these are needed other than for the reasons I quoted you on above.
    Perhaps if you outlined why we need them, what they would provide for the INS in terms of meeting their current mission goals?
    Rather than immediately discounting the use of civilian transport and declaring a need for Ireland to have an armed transport capability.
    Perhaps if you fleshed out your argument with actual reason other than the because we can it seems to be based on at the moment?

    P.S if you can't see the Walter Mitty in declaring that with bigger ships we could have to the north pole and the INS undertaking ''worldwide'' missions as soon as we have the capability....
    Well I don't know how else to describe it.


  • #89
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    goldie fish wrote: »
    We didn't impose limitations on ourselves, we are just realistic about our requirements. Having been on both Frigates and OPVs over the years I can tell you which one I would prefer to be stuck on in an atlantic storm, and it doesn't begin with F. Without having its entire useful space taken up with weaponry thats only used on exercise, electronics or redundant powerplants that exist only in case the ship is attacked, you leave more space for a reasonable level of crew comfort. And if you want people at 100% this is very important. Our crew accomodation is more like the standard for merchant seamen, who live and work aboard ship for often a year at a time.

    We don't NEED either of the things you suggested, and you have not provided any logical reason why we might do.

    Need no, should yes. Of course we don't need anything but meet our E.U obligations on fishing.

    Some of the foreign ships are proper crap. Maybe you were on one? However F for Frigate is still better than P for patrol no matter what providing they are relatively new ships.

    What ships are like for the crew is one thing, what ships are to the taxpayer is another, what ships are to Ireland is something else again.

    Personally I believe in getting Ireland out of the goldfish bowl. A bigger ship would stretch Ireland for the better. Whether that is walter mitty, needless or what I couldn't care less.


  • #90
    Garzard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Garzard


    banie01 wrote: »
    That would be the EPV(Extended Patrol Vessel) of a @4000tons and an @€;90mln cost if it goes ahead.
    It would really be an enlarged OPV with more container space, better seakeeping and more deck space.
    It was discussed here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056160359
    With great discussion from some folks on why we needed frigates and destroyers.:rolleyes:

    And now we also need combat zone capable transport ships for our upcoming visits to the north pole....
    So that would add an Ice breaking requirement to the mix, aswell as transport and combat!

    I'm really starting to see this as a Walter Mitty thread!

    I read that one of the leading contenders are either the Danish Absalon-Class http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/ or a version of the German MEKO 200 http://vacuum.jetsgroup.com/en/Sanitary-systems/Navy/References/Meko-200A-Corvettes-for-South-African-Navy.aspx. Trouble is the cost of the Danish ship for example costs well over $250 million a pop. Nevertheless, I'm all for more capable ships in Irish service and think it's about time we did given the size of our coastline.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,933 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Garzard wrote: »
    I read that one of the leading contenders are either the Danish Absalon-Class http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/absalon/ or a version of the German MEKO 200 http://vacuum.jetsgroup.com/en/Sanitary-systems/Navy/References/Meko-200A-Corvettes-for-South-African-Navy.aspx. Trouble is the cost of the Danish ship for example costs well over $250 million a pop. Nevertheless, I'm all for more capable ships in Irish service and think it's about time we did given the size of our coastline.

    A lot of that €250mln cost is due to meeting NATO requirements and standards.
    A lot of the cost in the German and Danish designs come down to the Armouring, the N.B.C enclosed citadel area and the very extensive multipurpose sensor suite, missile systems and electronics and ensuring interoperability with other NATO systems .

    An Irish specced(Imagine a paddy spec car) ship would be of a much lower spec sensor wise,
    Would have a much reduced electronics suite,
    would almost certainly exclude any air defense element outside of E/O layed guns,
    would have no ASW capability,
    would likely also exclude the NBC element too.
    And those ommisions alone would significantly reduce the cost of the ship itself.
    If I remember correctly Babcock have submitted a costed design proposal for the larger vessel.
    But I'm sure Goldie will add more to that....


  • #92
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    aindriu80 wrote: »
    Need no, should yes. Of course we don't need anything but meet our E.U obligations on fishing.

    Some of the foreign ships are proper crap. Maybe you were on one? However F for Frigate is still better than P for patrol no matter what providing they are relatively new ships.

    What ships are like for the crew is one thing, what ships are to the taxpayer is another, what ships are to Ireland is something else again.

    Personally I believe in getting Ireland out of the goldfish bowl. A bigger ship would stretch Ireland for the better. Whether that is walter mitty, needless or what I couldn't care less.

    To have a ship working at its full capability, you need a crew working at its full capability. Proper crew accomodation helps in this case. The RN only recently came round to this way of thinking, where once it was 20 sailors to a messdeck, you now have 4 to a cabin. Denmark learnt this many years ago too.
    I have been on more than one foreign frigate, British, US, French, Russian, Dutch, Australian they are all equally crap. Too many fittings sticking out, just waiting for people to be injured agains them when the ship is doing somersaults in an atlantic swell. In addition, while weapon related sensors may be state of the art, their engine management and conning control equipment has not moved with the times, and most are still 1950s, with big brass wheels on helm and manual engine throttle. Few have electronic charts, and the whole crewing system is by necessity, excessive.
    Our P ships have longer range, similar speed, and require less bods to do the same job that the frigates will spend 90% of their life doing.,


  • #93
    Garzard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Garzard


    banie01 wrote: »
    A lot of that €250mln cost is due to meeting NATO requirements and standards.
    A lot of the cost in the German and Danish designs come down to the Armouring, the N.B.C enclosed citadel area and the very extensive multipurpose sensor suite, missile systems and electronics and ensuring interoperability with other NATO systems .

    An Irish specced(Imagine a paddy spec car) ship would be of a much lower spec sensor wise,
    Would have a much reduced electronics suite,
    would almost certainly exclude any air defense element outside of E/O layed guns,
    would have no ASW capability,
    would likely also exclude the NBC element too.
    And those ommisions alone would significantly reduce the cost of the ship itself.

    Hopefully it wouldn't be stripped down to that extent. If it was up to me I'd probably keep everything it was built with for exercises, international missions and also for insurance itself.


  • #94
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    goldie fish wrote: »
    To have a ship working at its full capability, you need a crew working at its full capability. Proper crew accomodation helps in this case. The RN only recently came round to this way of thinking, where once it was 20 sailors to a messdeck, you now have 4 to a cabin. Denmark learnt this many years ago too.
    I have been on more than one foreign frigate, British, US, French, Russian, Dutch, Australian they are all equally crap. Too many fittings sticking out, just waiting for people to be injured agains them when the ship is doing somersaults in an atlantic swell. In addition, while weapon related sensors may be state of the art, their engine management and conning control equipment has not moved with the times, and most are still 1950s, with big brass wheels on helm and manual engine throttle. Few have electronic charts, and the whole crewing system is by necessity, excessive.
    Our P ships have longer range, similar speed, and require less bods to do the same job that the frigates will spend 90% of their life doing.,

    The P vessels have done a very good job for us so far. There is no reason Ireland can't come up with its own design to suit our needs or at least nudge things in that direction. Seems as though the bigger ships(frigates) from the smaller countries in northern europe are not as streamlined as they should be.

    Of course bigger ships require bigger crews and that would be a bit of a change for us plus longer time on board so they should be liveable.


  • #95
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    The P50 and P60 is an irish design with the assistance of STX canada. P31, and all the P20s were also Irish designs, which were also built here.We have a long history of designing OPVs and other nations navies have taken a large leaf from our book.

    Bigger ships do not necessarily need bigger crews.


  • #96
    Garzard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Garzard


    The RN's light carrier HMS Illustrious will be retired in a few years, I'm sure Britain would be delighted to sell it to us, and likely very cheaply, at that. Some helicopters, preferably second-hand IMO to further save costs to go with it would also come in handy for expanded SAR capablilites for example, for extra air support to the army, etc. The ship is still in great condition, has decent armanent and has also recently undergone a refit. Having the ship and the extra aircraft could expand the INS's capabilities hugely. Just an idea.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Garzard wrote: »
    The RN's light carrier HMS Illustrious will be retired in a few years, I'm sure Britain would be delighted to sell it to us, and likely very cheaply, at that. Some helicopters, preferably second-hand IMO to further save costs to go with it would also come in handy for expanded SAR capablilites for example, for extra air support to the army, etc. The ship is still in great condition, has decent armanent and has also recently undergone a refit. Having the ship and the extra aircraft could expand the INS's capabilities hugely. Just an idea.

    Total crew of all current Naval Service vessels put together: 389
    Crew needed for Illustrious (before you add any aircraft): 685

    You're talking about roughly tripling the staffing of the Naval Service. Even in the fantasy land where Ireland a) could afford b) needed and c) wanted Illustrious that would be a crazy thing to do. Adding the aircraft would require a similar large increase in the staffing of the Air Corps.

    The fact that we don't have the money or a useful use for it is, of course, beside the point.


  • #98
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Garzard wrote: »
    The RN's light carrier HMS Illustrious will be retired in a few years, I'm sure Britain would be delighted to sell it to us, and likely very cheaply, at that. Some helicopters, preferably second-hand IMO to further save costs to go with it would also come in handy for expanded SAR capablilites for example, for extra air support to the army, etc. The ship is still in great condition, has decent armanent and has also recently undergone a refit. Having the ship and the extra aircraft could expand the INS's capabilities hugely. Just an idea.

    Implied-Facepalm.jpg


  • #99
    Morpheus
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 2,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Morpheus


    [MOD] Merged this thread into the old 2 new naval vessels thread. Also, this is one of my favorite threads, even as a honky I still like to see the "eeew sailors" get to play with new kit, but please try to refrain from muppetry and waltering if possible and keep the discussion alive.[/MOD]


  • #100
    aindriu80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    Garzard wrote: »
    The RN's light carrier HMS Illustrious will be retired in a few years, I'm sure Britain would be delighted to sell it to us, and likely very cheaply, at that. Some helicopters, preferably second-hand IMO to further save costs to go with it would also come in handy for expanded SAR capablilites for example, for extra air support to the army, etc. The ship is still in great condition, has decent armanent and has also recently undergone a refit. Having the ship and the extra aircraft could expand the INS's capabilities hugely. Just an idea.

    Illustrious will go to India or somewhere like it. As for the new U.K carriers, they should be going in the same direction:D. The U.K needs to start again on a proper cat & trap carrier


  • #101
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    For about €60million we could get a brand new state of the art ship designed specifically for

    Maritime Surveillance
    Emergency Towing Operations
    Fire Fighting
    Environmental Response
    Search and Rescue (SAR)
    Helicopter In-Flight Refuelling (HIFR)
    Fisheries Enforcement
    Oil Recovery Operations (ORO)
    Hydrographic Surveying
    On-scene command and coordination platform

    1597013.jpg

    The INS have been carrying out RAS with the ILV Granuaile recently but this would open up a whole world of possibilities. A most suitable platform for their new ROV kit too. And a crew of just 18 needed.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement