Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

13567162

Comments

  • 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    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.


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


    We need neither frigate nor transport ship.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    We need neither frigate nor transport ship.

    Both are a fantastic capability.


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


    aindriu80 wrote: »
    Both are a fantastic capability.

    Which we neither need nor can afford.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    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


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,673 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...?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    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


    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
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    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.
    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.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,673 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,673 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,272 ✭✭✭Garzard


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


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭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!


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


    Bumpity bump.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    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!


  • 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?


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    Bumpity bump.

    ??

    The old search function is fierce handy :eek:


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭aindriu80


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,272 ✭✭✭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
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭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....


Advertisement