3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

cameramonkey · 07-12-2018 3:31pm

Yawlboy wrote: »

Second did the same, but in a different direction. The gun then decided to go fully automatic, 6 rounds in as many seconds..... until the PO in charge of the GCC hit the stop button.

The skipper then decided to use the secondary armaments.

Was it a run away gun type situation or did it just somehow go into auto mode?

Yawlboy · 07-12-2018 5:03pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

Was it a run away gun type situation or did it just somehow go into auto mode?

It’s controlled by a computer system in the bridge and aimed by the sight on top. My understanding is that it was a computer issue. It somehow switched from single shot to full auto. The 76 can fire 85 rounds a minute......

sparky42 · 07-12-2018 6:27pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I presume it will be more expensive ordering a one off instead of the way we got the last 4. If there was a need by other country's for vessels to it could be easier to order 3 or 4 together. I believe this is what we are now doing with drugs (legal)

Yeah a one off is far from ideal imo, it would be handy if there was something we could leverage off of but I can't think of any European Navy that's currently looking at anything like it, I mean even the Type 31 proposals don't really seem to match what has been talked about in the past.

That being said given our procurement rate I'd bet we're still 2 years from selecting a design even after the Tender finally happens.

tac foley · 07-12-2018 11:25pm

Yawlboy wrote: »

It’s controlled by a computer system in the bridge and aimed by the sight on top. My understanding is that it was a computer issue. It somehow switched from single shot to full auto. The 76 can fire 85 rounds a minute......

That's about fifteen year's worth of ammunition!

jonnybigwallet · 08-12-2018 9:35am

A bit more live firing exercise seems like a good idea

Leonidas BL · 08-12-2018 2:45pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Jesus by the sounds of it Arklow had a lucky escape!

By the sounds of it, Arklow was safe enough

sparky42 · 12-12-2018 6:53pm

The Navy has fitted the 76mm, some photo's up on their facebook page.

jonnybigwallet · 16-12-2018 4:06pm

Thanks for the update Sparky. I guess this closes a significant chapter in the upgrading of the NS capability! Perhaps a wee bit of an hiatus to follow. But we still have stuff to look forward to; the replacement of the Peacocks and the ordering of a new flagship (both mentioned in the 2017 white paper). And with reunification looking more likely than ever....we'll need to be even more ambitious than before. I look forward with pleasant anticipation, to sharing and debating further military enhancements in the coming year. Merry Christmas all and watch this space!

mikeym · 16-12-2018 9:19pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Thanks for the update Sparky. I guess this closes a significant chapter in the upgrading of the NS capability! Perhaps a wee bit of an hiatus to follow. But we still have stuff to look forward to; the replacement of the Peacocks and the ordering of a new flagship (both mentioned in the 2017 white paper). And with reunification looking more likely than ever....we'll need to be even more ambitious than before. I look forward with pleasant anticipation, to sharing and debating further military enhancements in the coming year. Merry Christmas all and watch this space!

There wont be any new ships being built in 2019.

The peacocks have a couple of years left.

sparky42 · 16-12-2018 11:25pm

mikeym wrote: »

There wont be any new ships being built in 2019.

The peacocks have a couple of years left.

Yeah at best I'd say we might see the tender for the EPV/MPV actually go out.

Larbre34 · 18-12-2018 5:20am

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah at best I'd say we might see the tender for the EPV/MPV actually go out.

I'd hope so, but I wonder have the brass and the mandarins even got close to deciding what they want and don't want. I can see the RFT now, 'ship(s) wanted, apply within'

jonnybigwallet · 03-01-2019 8:22pm

Just been mullin over the Eithne replacement....The only logical replacement I can see is the Arrowhead.

sparky42 · 03-01-2019 9:19pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Just been mullin over the Eithne replacement....The only logical replacement I can see is the Arrowhead.

A paper project that we have no idea of true costings or performance? Or whether it will meet what was the spec of the EPV (or what it might end up being)

roadmaster · 04-01-2019 1:46pm

The attitude towards defense i wouldn't be surprised if someone in the DOD suggested a lick of paint for Eithne instead of a replacement

Leonidas BL · 04-01-2019 4:57pm

What about these Vard marine designs. They are basically bigger versions of the Beckett Class. The Becketts are called a Vard-7-90 and these are the 95 and the 100....

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/VARD-7-095.pdf
https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/VARD-7-100.pdf

sparky42 · 04-01-2019 6:34pm

They might have been a better choice for the P60's than what we went with given their helicopter capability but for the stated EPV capability they lack the troop/equipment lift that were originally intended. That might have changed by now who knows but right now they wouldn't fit.

jonnybigwallet · 05-01-2019 7:44am

The Arrowhead is derived from the Ivor Huitfeld hull ( itself a version of the well regarded Absalon class). The Arrowhead design at present is moving towards a general purpose frigate as opposed to a slightly different role catered for by the Absalon. However the modular approach remains, so the opportunity exists to tailor the ship towards NS requirements. It is by no means a blank sheet of paper at this stage ( see company website and other internet sources). It's well worth looking at the material available so far. I would say that as customers in good standing with Babcocks that the NS would get a good deal, as a first export order. The ship is ideal now that the NS is involved in blue water operations as it can be armed with Surface to Air and Surface to Surface missiles as well as Torpedoes and Anti Submarine equipment, also can be equipped with two forward facing guns (115 and 76mm), and either one large or two smaller helicopters and carry about 60 soldiers, and convenient means of launching RIB's or assault craft. What's not to like about this package? I think its a cracker meself and with the Pound / Euro exchange rate now in our favour we find it has become more affordable!

sparky42 · 05-01-2019 8:51am

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

The Arrowhead is derived from the Ivor Huitfeld hull ( itself a version of the well regarded Absalon class). The Arrowhead design at present is moving towards a general purpose frigate as opposed to a slightly different role catered for by the Absalon. However the modular approach remains, so the opportunity exists to tailor the ship towards NS requirements. It is by no means a blank sheet of paper at this stage ( see company website and other internet sources). It's well worth looking at the material available so far. I would say that as customers in good standing with Babcocks that the NS would get a good deal, as a first export order. The ship is ideal now that the NS is involved in blue water operations as it can be armed with Surface to Air and Surface to Surface missiles as well as Torpedoes and Anti Submarine equipment, also can be equipped with two forward facing guns (115 and 76mm), and either one large or two smaller helicopters and carry about 60 soldiers, and convenient means of launching RIB's or assault craft. What's not to like about this package? I think its a cracker meself and with the Pound / Euro exchange rate now in our favour we find it has become more affordable!

At this moment it along with the other two Type 31 offers are nothing but funded studies by the RN for what might be selected in another year and that won't be built and operational for another 5 or so knowing their production rates. So no whatever it's design history it's not a ready to go design.

Also what it can do, that very much depends on what the price is doesn't it, you seem to be forgetting that to hold down the price to the 250 million the RN is playing its new normal of pull through from the 23 GP hulls, we don't have that option so would face a much higher price for the same spec if we wanted to pay for it.

Larbre34 · 07-01-2019 6:04pm

The Arrowhead is too much for what we need. Its a 140m armoured gunship of a blue water frigate with embarkation space for 160+ and a sticker price of a third of a billion euro.

The Leander is more plausible at 120m and far simpler. Even the proven Absalon itself is about €200m and that would be the absolute upper limit of our needs.

Whatever is procured, it absolutely cannot be a first off the line new class, we havent the money or the political capital to take on a lemon like the Canterbury or a Type 45.

sparky42 · 07-01-2019 6:29pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Arrowhead is too much for what we need. Its a 140m armoured gunship of a blue water frigate with embarkation space for 160+ and a sticker price of a third of a billion euro.

The Leander is more plausible at 120m and far simpler. Even the proven Absalon itself is about €200m and that would be the absolute upper limit of our needs.

Whatever is procured, it absolutely cannot be a first off the line new class, we havent the money or the political capital to take on a lemon like the Canterbury or a Type 45.

What ever we pick even a bare bones hull is going to be tricky to get in at €200 million, I mean just Absalon alone had plenty of tricks to keep their prices down that we won't be able to use (and inflation and restarting a build for it).

I agree about not going for anything first of it's kind, frankly the entire DF should have that tattooed on, pick something that's already in use and go from there. Same as if/when the 139's get replaced with something of actual capability we should just pick one of the current designs and buy them.

roadmaster · 07-01-2019 9:56pm

sparky42 wrote: »

What ever we pick even a bare bones hull is going to be tricky to get in at €200 million, I mean just Absalon alone had plenty of tricks to keep their prices down that we won't be able to use (and inflation and restarting a build for it).

I agree about not going for anything first of it's kind, frankly the entire DF should have that tattooed on, pick something that's already in use and go from there. Same as if/when the 139's get replaced with something of actual capability we should just pick one of the current designs and buy them.

I know this probably not best practice but could you buy a vessel without we say proper air defense but have vessel built in away that when money becomes available an air defense system could be installed easily?

sparky42 · 07-01-2019 10:04pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I know this probably not best practice but could you buy a vessel without we say proper air defense but have vessel built in away that when money becomes available an air defense system could be installed easily?

Sure, it's the RN standard, ie "Fitted For, But Not With". So you could buy a hull that has space and margins for VLS systems but not buy them, or for a more capable radar but not fit one (that's actually what the P60's masts are capable of).

An example from the RN is that the Type 45's has spare capacity for more VLS tubes if there was ever money for them.

Larbre34 · 08-01-2019 1:37am

VLS is a whole different conversation. It it were to be a serious consideration for the DF at all, it should have been addressed for the Becketts and it, presumably, wasn't. Yet they are seen as readily deployable vessels to operations in the Med and possibly Horn of Africa type scenarios with only a naval gun and cannons.

Remember the brass went to the opposite side of the Globe to review Canterbury and she is a car ferry with lighter armament than the P60s. They obviously see that as the basis for a solution rather than a NATO spec support ship or flexi frigate.

Those expecting VLS and combat info systems capability for anti-ship and anti-air warfare will likely be disappointed. We'll end up with a big empty vessel with some modular space for accommodation / hospital / army vehicles / embarked battalion / research science tasks. It'll have a 76mm OTO Melara and be fitted 'for, but not with' helo ops.

Leonidas BL · 08-01-2019 1:38pm

sparky42 wrote: »

They might have been a better choice for the P60's than what we went with given their helicopter capability but for the stated EPV capability they lack the troop/equipment lift that were originally intended. That might have changed by now who knows but right now they wouldn't fit.

What about this baby? It seems to have troop/equipment lift.
Check out the product sheet. https://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/Naval/Crossover/Documents/Product-Sheet_CrossOver_Range_02_2014.pdf

Damen_Crossover_131.png?mw=1300

sparky42 · 08-01-2019 2:07pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

VLS is a whole different conversation. It it were to be a serious consideration for the DF at all, it should have been addressed for the Becketts and it, presumably, wasn't. Yet they are seen as readily deployable vessels to operations in the Med and possibly Horn of Africa type scenarios with only a naval gun and cannons.

Remember the brass went to the opposite side of the Globe to review Canterbury and she is a car ferry with lighter armament than the P60s. They obviously see that as the basis for a solution rather than a NATO spec support ship or flexi frigate.

Those expecting VLS and combat info systems capability for anti-ship and anti-air warfare will likely be disappointed. We'll end up with a big empty vessel with some modular space for accommodation / hospital / army vehicles / embarked battalion / research science tasks. It'll have a 76mm OTO Melara and be fitted 'for, but not with' helo ops.

Why would it have been looked at in the Becketts? I mean remember they were first thought of back in the mid 00's when the Navy under the first WP wasn't going to be deployed at all. Also what European OPV's have VLS's installed?

While I certainly agree that we are unlikely to get anything close to a NATO standard, I'm doubtful that we'd get something like the Canterbury either. Basically all we have is an idea that's a decade old, we have little idea on what the thinking is until a tender finally comes out.

sparky42 · 08-01-2019 2:08pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

What about this baby? It seems to have troop/equipment lift.
Check out the product sheet. https://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/Naval/Crossover/Documents/Product-Sheet_CrossOver_Range_02_2014.pdf

The Crossover design is certainly attractive on paper, but again that's all they are right now. From memory Damen hasn't built any of them yet so I suppose the same issue comes up.

Leonidas BL · 08-01-2019 2:15pm

So that suits us perfect except none has being built already? I cant find anything that has being built that seems to match.

sparky42 · 08-01-2019 3:01pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

So that suits us perfect except none has being built already? I cant find anything that has being built that seems to match.

Sums up the issue fairly nicely. Now it could be that whenever the tender comes out thinking or budgets might have changed, we'll just have to wait and see.

jonnybigwallet · 10-01-2019 10:07pm

This site seems to be acting up at the moment. Just wrote a pretty lengthy post and it fell over. Will have another go tomorrow.

Heraldoffreeent · 10-01-2019 10:23pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

This site seems to be acting up at the moment. Just wrote a pretty lengthy post and it fell over. Will have another go tomorrow.

Ah.............you're grand.....................

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Comments