3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Add to that the purchasing power of Sterling versus the Euro. In may 2016 the Pound had 30% premium on the Euro, today it has a 13% premium, and the UK is going to have to buy some raw materials and components from the EU.

And thats not taking any account of WTO, or whatever is put in place post Brexit.

True that, in the end I wonder if IP ownership will hurt the Babcock design as well, at least BAE own their design and have more experience in building variants of it.


But still the 31 seems to be much of a unicorn that nobody really knows about other than it will be "cheap", though to be honest given the global orders of the 26 now I wonder would it just have been easier to build the 5 GP variants as planned.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what the outcome of the type 31 competition is. You can order one from Blohm and Voss. In Euros.

Which is likely to be several times the price any government is willing to pay even for the most bare bones version you could get. If you go off the price Algeria paid then I can already see the headlines of "1/3-1/2 of the Children's hospital", or "x homeless while Ireland militarises". The price tag is just too high, nor is it capable in it's current configuration of preforming the planned sealift that was meant to be part of the MPV. The Type 31 variant might (but unlikely) but that's still a paper design.

I'm still mullin over that one meself. I'm looking at some very capable Russian kit at the moment which might well fit the bill!.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

I'm still mullin over that one meself. I'm looking at some very capable Russian kit at the moment which might well fit the bill!.

Why? We are a NATO standard military, we aren't going to be buying Russian kit particularly not with the current geopolitical environment. Given the "foggy" WP position on it I think wed have to wait to see how the Post Brexit Irish Sea environment is first for their replacements.

Somebody deleted my last post. Own up..whi dunnit?

I expected a bit of support from you Leo..and I put a lot of effort into that one

Did ypu manage to read my last post Leo?

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Somebody deleted my last post. Own up..whi dunnit?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Most disappointing response all round...Obviously not a place for patriots to be hangin about. No respect for freedom of speech.

Id say you hit a nerve with the navy and they rang J2 who hacked boards.ie and deleted your post. It’s the only thing I think that could explain it

In terms of the future purchase of the MPV, while it hasn't of course been talked about is buying a ship with helicopter capability without the AC having any helicopters to use on them. Now to start if we are going to be doing more multinational ops like the Med there's no reason why we couldn't have a foreign group use it and help bring the skillset of the NS back up to spec for it.

But what will be a likely option for the AC if/when the question comes round? I mean the military 139's don't have folding rotors it won't do (and I really hope we aren't stupid enough to get another "first of type"), what would be the option that might be on the running? Next question our green 139's are only 13 years old so they aren't going anywhere soon, would we end up with a subset of new airframes?

Larbre34 wrote: »

In the event that NS heli ops are resumed at some point on a MRV, why does the Air Corps have to have anything to do with it?

Why shouldn't the Navy commission and train its own pilots and technicians and procure 3 or 4 naval helicopters for rotation to sea duty? They could be easily accommodated on Haulbowline with backup facilities for refuge and refuelling at Baldonnel and the Coastguard SAR stations.

I mean the requirements for a sea-going airframe are arguably even more specialised than they were when the Dauphins were acquired in the 80's. Giving the task to the Air Corps would distract from their own mission and be trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole as regards commonality.

3 x NH90s for starters!

To me having the Navy stand up its own section given how small the numbers of airframes we would be talking about is just duplicating roles and using up a limited budget just to create a separate "silo" effect. I mean you are right about the complexity but for just a few airframes getting crews trained up would be even more difficult for the navy.

If you look at the New Zealand set up they have Navy crew assigned but the helicopters are Air Force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._6_Squadron_RNZAF

I'd agree with the NH 90s btw which could lead on to getting the Transport version to replace the 139s when it comes time.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Makes sense to me, but I've just spotted the 90 is ~300% the cost of a 139.

Perhaps the NS reluctance to include suitable Helo provision in their outline brief for a MRV is that they know full well a capable medium lift naval chopper is about 70% the price of a P60. I mean theres no point speccing a decent modular freight capacity for the MRV without choppers that can airlift it in all weathers.

I guess its the usual shortsighted procurement model in the Irish public sector, get them to sign off on the ship and bring the choppers into the mix later. A model which has been shown to be uneconomic in the long run, e.g.health, schools etc

If we are going to get any modern combat capable helicopter units then it's going to cost a lot more than our 139's which are just green painted civvie models. I wonder if with the increases in EU funding mechanisms we might be able to look at that for funding when it might come time? As to the NS position, I'm guessing that might be internal pissing match between them and the AC again.

Larbre34 wrote: »

You name it. Pumas, S-61s, S-92s, anything with twin or more engines.

Id imagine while not being military spec, they are probably pricey enough specs to their own harsh operating conditions

And of course doesn't deal with the issue of people trying to shot at them. Right now we've got equipment that can't even do UN deployments safely, it's a false economy imo to get civvie helicopters for whatever price reduction it might bring.

Could the coast guard heli's operate off a ship or are they too big?

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah they are the civilian version of the design, however Canada hasn't had the greatest time bringing them into service:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-148_Cyclone


Again though particularly if a) we'd look to leverage off another nations experience/training system to jump start the AC/NS (rather than starting from zero again) and maybe look to use some of the new EU funding mechanisms that might be available Id be looking at one of the European designs.

I am not sure if we are still part of the nordic battlegroup but if we are that could be a entry point for your idea of us getting training

The Apache sounds like the best choice to me!

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm presuming that's what he's talking about, not really my favourite to be honest.

No, Domino's is nicer

sparky42 wrote: »

You mean picking an expensive heavy attack helicopter for a maritime helicopter is a bit silly?

Unless you wanna blow up the fishing boats that's out of range of the 76mm?

I think he was just rising ya

sparky42 wrote: »

Still a few Fennec's that could be armed on occasion wouldn't be the worst thing to look at for foreign deployments with small logistical demands?

Ya defo an AH-6 or an EC635(which shares engine with the 135), but and Apache is overkill.

BTW I was meaning to start a thread on the Pajero replacement. I wanna know what ya think.

Yawlboy wrote: »

Easy the new Land Rover Defender ;-)

Or if the accountants get their way the Dacia Duster

Yuck. Im gonna start a new thread on it.