Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
02-03-2013, 20:08   #61
aindriu80
Registered User
 
aindriu80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,955
Send a message via ICQ to aindriu80 Send a message via Yahoo to 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
aindriu80 is offline  
Advertisement
02-03-2013, 20:52   #62
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindriu80 View Post
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.



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.

This is a photo of FOCNS laying the keel last may.
goldie fish is offline  
(4) thanks from:
02-03-2013, 21:38   #63
aindriu80
Registered User
 
aindriu80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,955
Send a message via ICQ to aindriu80 Send a message via Yahoo to aindriu80
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
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.
aindriu80 is offline  
02-03-2013, 21:40   #64
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,136
We need neither frigate nor transport ship.
goldie fish is offline  
(2) thanks from:
02-03-2013, 21:53   #65
aindriu80
Registered User
 
aindriu80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,955
Send a message via ICQ to aindriu80 Send a message via Yahoo to aindriu80
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
We need neither frigate nor transport ship.
Both are a fantastic capability.
aindriu80 is offline  
Advertisement
03-03-2013, 06:53   #66
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindriu80 View Post
Both are a fantastic capability.
Which we neither need nor can afford.
goldie fish is offline  
(3) thanks from:
03-03-2013, 11:34   #67
banie01
Registered User
 
banie01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
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

Last edited by banie01; 03-03-2013 at 11:45. Reason: Added sentence
banie01 is offline  
03-03-2013, 11:56   #68
Tabnabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,624
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...?
Tabnabs is offline  
03-03-2013, 12:08   #69
banie01
Registered User
 
banie01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabnabs View Post
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
banie01 is offline  
Advertisement
03-03-2013, 12:46   #70
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,136
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.
goldie fish is offline  
Thanks from:
03-03-2013, 13:20   #71
banie01
Registered User
 
banie01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
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



Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
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.
banie01 is offline  
03-03-2013, 13:21   #72
aindriu80
Registered User
 
aindriu80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,955
Send a message via ICQ to aindriu80 Send a message via Yahoo to aindriu80
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldie fish View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by banie01 View Post
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.

Last edited by aindriu80; 03-03-2013 at 13:24.
aindriu80 is offline  
03-03-2013, 13:30   #73
Tabnabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by banie01 View Post
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.
Tabnabs is offline  
Thanks from:
03-03-2013, 13:36   #74
banie01
Registered User
 
banie01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindriu80 View Post


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?
banie01 is offline  
03-03-2013, 13:39   #75
Tabnabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindriu80 View Post

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
Tabnabs is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet