PDA

View Full Version : EPV for naval service



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Farel'
14th October 2003, 03:59
http://www.navy.gov.au/gallery/ships/images/lpa20010208-1.jpg

In the past we have discussed(sort of) the type of ship we do not need(aircraft carriers) instead of the type we do. Given the current mission that is being undertaken by L.E. Niamh, I think it is time for a rethink on the policy of an 8 ship Naval Service as outlined by the white paper.

At the time, the world was going through a period of relative peace,with no apparent risk to the world. Sept 11 has changed all that,and though we may not be directly affected by it,the states that usually carried the can of logistic support,the US and UK are now under pressure with commitments worldwide in the so called "war against terror".

In the past when ireland went on resupply missions, it could do so safe in the knowledge that it would neither be a target for attack,and would be protected en route by other navies. It is time to realise that we no longer have that advantage. At sea we are at the moment(unless there is a change of foreign policy) on our own.

Therefor what is needed is a re evaluation of our vessels self defence capability,though to be fair, what our vessels have always been armed with have recently been added to the deck armament of major US and RN warships,such as the HMG and GPMG. The current RIBs on all but the newer vessels should be replaced with larger types,more suitable for operating great distances from the "mother ship" i.e. beyond the horizon,as the P50s boats are.

Secondly, the need for a vessel capable of carrying stores,equipment,vehicles and troops to overseas missions,and providing a C3 capability on arrival is now obvious. We can no longer assume that on arrival the mission will be set up,secure and awaiting our arrival. A "tactical advance to base camp" must be assumed in all future missions,and as few of these will be within walking distance of our fair isle,and airborne C3 is still a pipe dream for all but the Larger states and NATO a vessel cabable of this role is required.
The vessel above would be what I would have in mind,or even the soon to be retired RFA "sirs" which proved their worth during the Falklands,(where one was destroyed in an Argentine attack,caused in some part to bad planning and lack of useful AA defence),have been resupplying UK forces in NI and Germany for the last 30 odd years and recently demonstrated their usefulness in the delivery of humanitarian aid to Basra in the closing stages of the "liberation" of Iraq.
http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/bed2.JPG

Bravo20
14th October 2003, 10:32
So it has maybe 2 re-supply trips in the year. What does it do for the rest of the year?

tashkugan
14th October 2003, 10:54
I do believe that it is worth considering chartering or adding a supply vessel to the fleet (the chances are slim I know). You don't need a dedicated supply vessel per say but it could follow the norwegian or danish model where you use an OSV for just just this purpose.

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00032/valk_copy_32512a.jpg


Now if you were to plan for this you could well come up with something like the canadian Kingston class which includes space for modular storage between the stacks.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_images/fleet_images/mcd_tour_rs_e.jpg

John
14th October 2003, 12:54
A subject like this came up a while ago and the Catamaran being evaluated by the U.S. was mentioned.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/hsv.htm

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=3137

Mine Warfare Command and Control Configuration
Proposed MCW load out would include:

60 additional staff and personnel
Four SH/MH-60S helos
Six berthing trailers (10 berths per trailer)
Two hotel services trailers (toilet/shower)

Medical Support Facility Configuration
A Single baseline HSV can be configured to carry:

Six semi-trailers with fully-equipped operating rooms
Four water tankers
Four food trailers
Four toilet/shower trailers
Six HUMVEES
Eight to Twelve passenger busses
Radiological services
Medical laboratory to include; pharmacy, optometry lab, and cat scan
Mobile oxygen producing plant
Portal between twin Hulls providing a lee in order to take on patients at sea
Four Semi-Trailers hospital bed facility

Maritime Intercept Operations Configuration
HSV configured for ATFP / Maritime Intercept Operations (MIO) package:

Augments ship’s force protection capabilities and provides a full spectrum of landside/waterside security functions for ship port visits.
Force level protection is rapidly scalable and tailored to threat and host nation considerations.
Minimizes high cost airlift and local civilian contracting requirements by bringing organic mission support capabilities with the vessel (C2, berthing/messing, barriers, etc.)
44 additional personnel
Two 21' RHIBs rapidly deployed via "Moon Pool" with boarding/security party
Team of working dogs (cage area on vehicle deck 20'x20')
Four HMMWVs
Mammal pool (20'x20'x4' total weight 3500 pounds) deployed through "Moon Pool"
Support USCG HH-60J JayHawk involved in SAR/Armed Recon/Drug Interdiction

Notional Homeland Security (HLS) package:

22 additional personnel
Two 21' RHIBs rapidly deployed via "Moon Pool" with boarding/security party
Two USCG HH-60J or Special Forces (MH-6) on deck (up to Six in vehicle storage area)

yellowjacket
14th October 2003, 13:18
One problem with cats and trimarans seems to be that they don't handle rough seas well. Look how often the fast ferry sailings are cancelled in moderate weather.

yooklid
14th October 2003, 16:13
John, your links are broken

Goldie fish
14th October 2003, 17:16
The RN are currently leasing vessels for amphib transport, and when these ships are not required for military service they work on commercial shipping route,carrying civilian cargo. However given the strain that our fleet is under I dont think it would be too impractical to keep such a vessel working full time. Remember stores are delivered to the countries ports by civilan chartered vessels, There is no reason why this task could not be carried out by such a naval vessel,all the time providing a valuable training ship.
The Catmaran hull "fast ferry" type would be limited and over complicated for our needs.

hptmurphy
15th October 2003, 11:32
Send your requests on a post card.........has DF policy ever been changed by anything posted here....well whats the chances of getting what you desire.....maybe we should all chip in and sponsor one for the NS......By the way that canadian Yoke ........is that one of those that turned up in Portsmouth recently with the whole crew suffering from seasickness because of the poor sea handling....definetly don't want one of those......Yeah ! some of the north sea oil Support ships would be nice....at least they can handle heavy sea conditions

c22910
15th October 2003, 17:16
Would it not be a better use of budget to ship the materials commercially such as Hapag-lloyad and may provide escort with the niamh. It doesn't sound like we need this too often.

Would we not get greater use out of providing the IAC with a C-130.

tashkugan
15th October 2003, 17:32
An OSV would probably be the best option. I though the canadian idea was good from an inshore perspective as they have a huge coastline to patrol and supply etc. I mean we could always charter the Irish Lights Vessel Granuaile (20 ton crane & helipad) <grin>.

http://www.elliott-turbo.com/new/product_images/granuaile.jpg

either way (charter c-130/charter ship) resupplying the liberian mission is going to be a very interesting exercise. hope they ship out a good workshop and spare gearboxes for those mowags.

Farel'
17th October 2003, 03:50
Some of you here are thinking too big. The catmaran type vessel is still a thing of the future,and would require all our current defence budget to maintain engines alone...

The Offshore supply vessel style would be a good idea for pure resupply,as would the Grainuaile,but these vessels would have limited Command and control facilities,or would sarcrifice this space at the cost of potential troop transport.

Consider the scenario of the operation. The sea is secure,land is not. Recce elements need to make their way ashore for prolongued periods to locate and perhaps create a base of operations for any possible operation. on the way out,you need to carry the troops,but you will need to carry most of the heavy equipment. A certain self defence capability is vital, as is good long range comms equipment. Helipads are optional,though the availability of one may make interoperability with other forces easier(East Timor for example).

However as bravo pointed out when it is not engaged in this operation what could it do? Everything the current fleet can do and more hopefully. A combined Naval-Civilian nautical training ship has long been a requirment in this state, and the new naval/civilian nautical college being built in cork at the moment could make this ship a reality. Pollution control and monitoring is also a role the NS has neglected,due to other commitments. Of course there would be no reason that this ship type could not also carry out fisheries protection,visit foreign ports on economic and courtesy visits,drug interdiction etc...

The Thing
19th October 2003, 14:31
They had a small logisitcs vessel a few years back and it was retired, it could hold up to 100 troops and was an ex-merchant ship.

Goldie fish
19th October 2003, 14:40
Thats what happens when you let a woman be defence minister....

Harry
18th February 2004, 01:42
Just heard Irish Ferries are looking to let go some staff but more interestingly some ships too. Would the NS have a need for vessel such as the Jonathan Swift for moving UN Troops and gear to missions rather than relying on foreign Naval assets. Obviously, it's not high on NS requirements but would such a civvie ship be convertable to naval requirements and would a twin hulled vessel such as the Swift be capable of going tp places like Liberia or the middle east. I did see the USMC / USN using similar vessels for MEU's on Rapid Response detail. I think it's a bit embarrasing for the DF to be shoving as many FFR's as they can onto a patrol vessel such as the Eithne and then relying on foreign naval / air assets to transport the rest of the gear.

mutter nutter
18th February 2004, 02:54
didn't the DF use a UN ro/ro type ship to get to a recent mission:confused:

DeV
18th February 2004, 15:27
yeah but thing it was just contracted out

British Navy currently has 2 (may be more) civilian Ro-Ro Container ships for moving stores/vehicles/etc between theatre

but remember the Altantic Conveyor in the Falklands

Goldie fish
18th February 2004, 17:20
Irish sea ferries are not designed for long trips,most are only classified for Near Continental waters....As far as I know the vessels used to carry vehicles out to Eritrea were Car carriers,though I am not sure if the same type went to Liberia.

Victor
20th February 2004, 16:15
Originally posted by Harry
Would the NS have a need for vessel such as the Jonathan Swift for moving UN Troops and gear to missions rather than relying on foreign Naval assets. I doubt the Swift has the range or space suitable for invading anything, but the Isle of Man. I think the number of high vehicles it can carry is also quite limited. At 50kt, shes fast, but I suspect is also expensive to run. You would need suitable dock space to unload, not just a quayside.

I suspect the larger ferries would be of more use, but again range and consumables might be an issue. I think it's the Isle of Inishmore that has a large open rear deck, that if suitable braced could operate a number of helicopters (it currently can only handle only one helicopter atop the cabin space).

I think the arrangment the RN / RFA has is it has a number of transports it either owns or has on long lease and when they are not needed they are let out on short leases, cutting the cost of ownership, while having a lot of deck space on shortish notice.

Potentially what we would like is something that could lift at least half of the RRF battalion equipment in one lift, but at the same time have some other use that would make it cheap enough to keep.

Separately there is the issue of having ammunition on commerical ships.

Goldie fish
23rd February 2004, 07:01
And how do you think it gets here?

Victor
23rd February 2004, 14:47
Dirigible? :D

My point is Irish Ferries are unlikely to carry any substantial amount of ammo and any ship that does will need the safety equipment and insurance to do so.

From time to time Naval Service vessels have been used transport ammunition as they can flood their magazines if there is a fire.

Goldie fish
23rd February 2004, 17:25
Irish ferries ships often carry far more dangerous cargo on TEU laden trucks. The trucks carry HAZ plates and the associated paraphenalia...
I have often stated that the NS require a ship specifically for this purpose though.

Harry
24th February 2004, 22:03
No I meant the NS buying or long term leasing one of the vessels and giving them a funky new grey paint job, not keeping them in Irish Ferries' hands. Although looking at the Swift today on the news I doubt it would be of much use to the DF, looks like the only thing it could transport is a few Fiat Seicentos (don't take me literally on that)

mutter nutter
25th February 2004, 15:50
Goldie, Iwas just looking through the DF strategy statement and something caught my eye, It mentioned increasing sealift capability I didn't know we had any to increase do you have any information on what their thinking about in term's of improved capability:confused:

Goldie fish
26th February 2004, 04:21
The UK MOD recently took delivery of a number of RO-RO ships,or sort of, For Strategic Sealift.
Originally the Royal Fleet Auxiliary operated the Ro Ro Vessel Sea Crusader,but this was returned to her Parent Company after 7 Yeasr service.
The Current Arrangement allows A.W.S.R. Shipping Ltd (AWSR) to supply the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with a multi-million world-wide strategic transport service through a new Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The sealift service contract will be worth approximately £950 million, depending upon the amount of operational and private usage of the ships, and will run until December 2024,providing ships and crews,which can be used for commercial trading when not required by the MOD.
The company was established with the express purpose of bidding for the £950 million contract to construct and own six 20,000-tonne ro-ro vessels for service with the UK's Ministry of Defence (MoD).
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5661/ferry.gif

http://www.shipphotos.co.uk/images/hurstpoint.jpg
Hurst Point

ForkTailedDevil
21st March 2004, 01:43
Recent naval moves in Europe are towards medium sized carriers and ships to move airpower and marines around for power projection.The only reason the Irish need a ship capable of delivering a unit overseas is for UN or EU missions and you wouldn't be conducting those missions alone.Someone else can take you along.No point in buying a big ship you'll rarely use when someone else will have one ready.A couple of tactical transports are faster and more adaptable.I'd be surprised if the Irish military ever deployed more than 700 troops overseas at once.Buy a couple of warships with big guns and lots of missles instead.They are more useful for patrol(which is the capability you want anyway) and you can blown stuff up with them.Thats the non-technical view on the situation.

cueball
30th March 2004, 01:17
One small question where the feck are you going to park these things? In Cobh?

We can hardly crew what we have.

The Emer(RUST BUCKET) is falling apart on a daily basis they haven't had stabalizers fully operational in 6 months and yet still go to sea in a dangerous condition, having a generator leave its mounting in rough weather to the SE in the middle of the night is a eyeopening experance let me tell you.

We need to get rid of this ship posthaste maybe replace it with a vessel of the types above.

On a lighter side the ERA's dont mind the Emer any more, so much stuff brecks every day that they just blame it on her age.

sparky
5th April 2005, 18:44
its all well and good saying we need new vessels, i am for that , but at the moment we dont have the crews to man them

the piper
5th April 2005, 19:54
So it has maybe 2 re-supply trips in the year. What does it do for the rest of the year?
well it could fuel the peacock class at sea instead of them going along side every few days

also it could be used in conjuction with new naval college for training purposes

and of course dont forget the bubble heads ha ha ha it could be used for their deep dives off the coast like a diving tender

Goldie fish
15th April 2005, 06:25
Emer is coming up for replacment any day now,and from what I have been hearing,a combination of PV/supply ship is being considered. The east wall of the basin has been dredged in anticipation of the future vessel,which is expected to be larger than any of the current fleet,some rumours saying up to twice the size of the more recent types( about 3500tonnes).

I am hoping the newer people here may be able to throw some more light on this subject.

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/49341.jpg

L.E.Niamh being used as a car ferry.

Aidan
15th April 2005, 15:50
Goldie, I've heard similar rumours for a while now, including from some well informed sources.

All kinds of other 'noise' in there as well like it being 'blue-green', or being like the Andrea Doria, and paid for out of other Depts funding aswell, the reserve having a greater role in its crewing, and so on.

Rumours, where would we be without them!

When is the Emer actiually due for retirement?

Goldie fish
15th April 2005, 17:21
2007

Come-quickly
15th April 2005, 21:05
Goldie that is the single best shot of an NS vessel I've ever seen.

Goldie fish
15th April 2005, 21:08
Nice shot indeed. Nothing to do with me unfortunately. In the UNIFIL days it was not unknown for one of the P20 types to head on a resupply trip with one or two panhards lashed to the Aft deck. Eithnes helideck recently recieved tie down points for this purpose,for the cancelled Liberia run.

Aidan
15th April 2005, 23:57
2007.

Then whatever is planned is either already decided, or will be in time for the next budget cycle. Cool.

Why move Panhards from here to the leb? Reliability issues or lifecycle problems?

Goldie fish
16th April 2005, 00:03
Remember..its panhards you are talking about here. Of the M3 variety.

Laners
16th April 2005, 02:53
Goldie that is one great looking photo where and when was it taken ? . Would be better without the vhicles on deck but becides that great photo . Pity the Offical Defence Forces site don,t post photos like that and some other photos I have see here ,way to go .

Laners
16th April 2005, 03:05
An OSV would probably be the best option. I though the canadian idea was good from an inshore perspective as they have a huge coastline to patrol and supply etc. I mean we could always charter the Irish Lights Vessel Granuaile (20 ton crane & helipad) <grin>.

http://www.elliott-turbo.com/new/product_images/granuaile.jpg

either way (charter c-130/charter ship) resupplying the liberian mission is going to be a very interesting exercise. hope they ship out a good workshop and spare gearboxes for those mowags.
I dought that Irish Lights Commissioners are intrested in having their vessel charted out

Goldie fish
16th April 2005, 03:17
Grainuaile seems to be kept pretty busy as it is. I got that photo from www.shipspotting.com though the person who posted it had other photos not taken by them(http://www.shipspotting.com/userinfo.php?uid=986). I believe it is taken when she was on the way to Liberia, but from where or by whom I don't know.

The site says

Irish warship L.E. NIAMH steaming towards Liberia in Oct 2003, with a cargo of jeeps visible on the after deck. This was in support of a Recce Mission that the ship inserted into the country prior to the deployment of an Irish Peacekeeping Battalion there in December 2003
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=49341

Lordinajamjar
16th April 2005, 10:22
What's the top speed of the Grainuaile? Correct me if I'm wrong but might she not be considered a bit on the slow side and not really suited for long trips outside Irish waters. Afterall was she not built with a specific task in mind which involves mainly coastal duties.

moggy
16th April 2005, 16:17
What's the top speed of the Grainuaile? Correct me if I'm wrong but might she not be considered a bit on the slow side and not really suited for long trips outside Irish waters. Afterall was she not built with a specific task in mind which involves mainly coastal duties.


Her speed is 13.1 knots - not fast at all, hey the navy should take her anyway
there is no money in the kitty for new ships, they might even get more miles of emer before she retires, is there any heads who served on emer out there???

Laners
16th April 2005, 19:01
Served on Banba, Grainne ,Emer , and Eithne

hptmurphy
16th April 2005, 19:22
I spent three weeks on her as a replacement...I was never so sick in all my life.It was probably something to do with hurricane charlie.

ELVIS
16th April 2005, 20:51
Emers engines are in a jock. They can bairly leave teh base as it is.

Come-quickly
16th April 2005, 21:06
Does Eithne use 76 crew every time she puts to sea or is that figure inclusive of the heli crews ?
Would a crew of 100 be manageable if the Permanent NS crew stayed at this figure and Eithne was replaced with something like standard flex support (minus most of the expensive weapons fit realistically), with the shortfall made up of reservists or other arms personnel?

Laners
17th April 2005, 00:34
Served on Banba, Grainne ,Emer , and Eithne
Oops I forgot about Setanta, but that was just for a week when I was a Sluggie

moggy
17th April 2005, 15:34
Oops I forgot about Setanta, but that was just for a week when I was a Sluggie
laners when are you writing the book

moggy
17th April 2005, 15:38
laners when are you writing the book


Eithne normally carries a crew of 72 heads, when we went to the USA in 86 we had a crew of 94 I am quoting from jockey's log book from that trip

moggy
17th April 2005, 15:40
Eithne normally carries a crew of 72 heads, when we went to the USA in 86 we had a crew of 94 I am quoting from jockey's log book from that trip

all of the above were naval service staff, to the best of my knowledge there was no air corps staff with us

hptmurphy
17th April 2005, 16:45
the Eithnes Cew has been downsized to about sixty.AC were never part of the establishment and were only on attachment.

its amazing how many passengers are picked up for Foreign trips...especially amongst the senior rates and officers.

hptmurphy
17th April 2005, 16:48
Emers engines ...pielsticks are the same as Aislings and Aoifes so spares shouldn't be a problem. Deirdre had a different fit...Polar Marine deisels and Eithnes are Rustons.

Laners
17th April 2005, 17:04
We had a C P O / Writer on board from N H Q in Dublin for the U S trip , his job on board was to be a personal steward/ breakfast cook for the Flag Officer. Or in other words a passanger

ELVIS
17th April 2005, 19:23
Emers engines ...pielsticks are the same as Aislings and Aoifes so spares shouldn't be a problem. Deirdre had a different fit...Polar Marine deisels and Eithnes are Rustons.
Spares aren't a problem but replacing the entire engines is a problem.

moggy
17th April 2005, 20:27
enought said??

Laners
17th April 2005, 21:58
laners when are you writing the book
Would love to write a book , but it would be nothing like the one by Tom MacGinty . Lots of good personal stories with some sort of timeline in relation to various ships and establishments and lots of good SCA i,e scandal and what realy happened at such and such a time. Of course I still have one good friend of mine still in the service and his name would pop up at numerious times in a book so I would have to be very diplomatic or else get some sort of imuniety from pressecution , or we could pool all the stories and have Roddy Doyle put it together . It could be a series of books , just think of the titles of the books , The Base , The Pubs of Cobh , The Trip To the Med , etc etc It would be a cross between Roddy Doyle,s Barrytown Trilogy and Patrick O,Brien,s Master and Commander and all his his other books in that series .

Laners
20th April 2005, 23:12
Comissioners for Irish light have a pretty good web site with links to articles in their magazine , Beam , some great stories for anyone into nautical stuff, one article in particular about a 27 day trip to Rockall by Grannualie is ? well read the article .

Goldie fish
22nd April 2005, 07:22
This ship is what I am considering would fit the bill. German Elbe class tender..

http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/gernavy2.jpg

Laners
23rd April 2005, 19:18
Intresting colour scheme, looks like an Irish flag

Goldie fish
23rd April 2005, 19:32
Intresting colour scheme, looks like an Irish flag

Where ?

Laners
23rd April 2005, 19:52
The UK MOD recently took delivery of a number of RO-RO ships,or sort of, For Strategic Sealift.
Originally the Royal Fleet Auxiliary operated the Ro Ro Vessel Sea Crusader,but this was returned to her Parent Company after 7 Yeasr service.
The Current Arrangement allows A.W.S.R. Shipping Ltd (AWSR) to supply the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with a multi-million world-wide strategic transport service through a new Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The sealift service contract will be worth approximately £950 million, depending upon the amount of operational and private usage of the ships, and will run until December 2024,providing ships and crews,which can be used for commercial trading when not required by the MOD.
The company was established with the express purpose of bidding for the £950 million contract to construct and own six 20,000-tonne ro-ro vessels for service with the UK's Ministry of Defence (MoD).
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5661/ferry.gif

http://www.shipphotos.co.uk/images/hurstpoint.jpg
Hurst Point
Interesting colour scheme , looks like an Irish flag

Tank
25th April 2005, 16:17
Guys, I can't believe this phantasy discussion has gone on for so long.

"Tactical advance to base camp must be assumed"??? The DF doing USMC style landings on a beach somewhere?? Dream on! We don't have the budget for stuff like that. We're a small nation and this kind of discussion is really just about dreaming of being like the "big boys" in NATO. We need to concentrate on being able to do what we can afford to contribute (A Battle Group or an Infantry Brigade) properly, not diversify into absurdities like this.

When the next NS vessel gets decommissioned I'd say the NS will be trying to get by without her. After all, with modern technology you can do more with less. And why would we need a ship with capabilities like that? We can hire transport space with a commercial carrier or some other country for the seldom times it's needed to transport bigger volumes of equipment. "The [need] for C3 capabilities on arrival is now obvious"??? No it's not! Since Ireland does not have the strength to go it alone on a mission there will always be other, bigger nations around on whose C3 capabilities we can piggyback, thereby saving money that's badly needed elsewhere.

What's being assumed here is that Ireland should have the capability to do a mission somewhere totally unsupported by others. That's unrealistic! Europe is creating the Battle Groups to move closer together and make best use of limited military capacities. We can team up with others if we need it. Let's stop wasting time dreaming about being in the "big boys club" and get on with the real core work!

Goldie fish
25th April 2005, 16:36
Guys, I can't believe this phantasy discussion has gone on for so long.

Its spelt fantasy


"Tactical advance to base camp must be assumed"??? The DF doing USMC style landings on a beach somewhere?? Dream on! We don't have the budget for stuff like that. We're a small nation and this kind of discussion is really just about dreaming of being like the "big boys" in NATO. We need to concentrate on being able to do what we can afford to contribute (A Battle Group or an Infantry Brigade) properly, not diversify into absurdities like this.

News for you. Its already been done. Liberia. L.E.Roisin.


When the next NS vessel gets decommissioned I'd say the NS will be trying to get by without her. After all, with modern technology you can do more with less.

You are unaware of the level of commitment the NS already. Can the gardai Patrol the entire Island of Ireland with 1 patrol car? In any case the White paper gave a commitment to an 8 ship fleet,and the quay space has already been earmarked in Haulbowline.


And why would we need a ship with capabilities like that? We can hire transport space with a commercial carrier or some other country for the seldom times it's needed to transport bigger volumes of equipment.

Again the need has been there in the past.


"The [need] for C3 capabilities on arrival is now obvious"??? No it's not! Since Ireland does not have the strength to go it alone on a mission there will always be other, bigger nations around on whose C3 capabilities we can piggyback, thereby saving money that's badly needed elsewhere.

Those other bigger nations are not always about. This has been learnt the hard way.Remember we are not a part of any military alliance. We cannot assume we would not be the main participant.


What's being assumed here is that Ireland should have the capability to do a mission somewhere totally unsupported by others. That's unrealistic! Europe is creating the Battle Groups to move closer together and make best use of limited military capacities. We can team up with others if we need it. Let's stop wasting time dreaming about being in the "big boys club" and get on with the real core work!

The only person assuming that is you. I think if you reread the entire thread,instead of the initial post,you'll find the requests a bit more reasonable than you assumption that we are looking for USMC style assault capability. Well the majority of requests at least.

Goldie fish
15th July 2005, 01:17
OK,the rumour persists.

About 4000 tonnes,Blue/green role.
Word is the finer details are being ironed out. As always budget is the only maybe,but in the past,there has never been a problem,ask,and you shall recieve.

I found this on the Blohm and Voss website....

Meko 200 MRV
http://212.72.173.53/img/meko_200mrv_gr.jpg

Main characteristics ship platform:
Length, overall 121.00 m
Length, DWL 109.00 m
Beam 17.00 m
Draught 4.40 m
Displacement 3,900 t
Range 8,000 nm
Endurance 30 days

Propulsion:
2 high-speed diesel engines 5,200 kW each
2 shafts fitted with controllable pitch propellers
Max. speed > 22 kn

Crew:
Total 150 + 10

Helicopter:
optional
http://212.72.173.53/img/opv_einsatz2.jpg

http://212.72.173.53/en/page.php?page_id=PG-215

Old Redeye
19th July 2005, 17:04
Now is definetely the time! Sell Eithne ASAP on this rumored trip to South America and order the new Joint Support Ship for soonest delivery. Also, get rid of P21, 22 & 23 and replace with one or two more Le Roisin's or, MEKO 100's in one contract with a B&V MEKO 200 Joint Support Ship. The MEKO 200 would do fine with an appropriate long-haul satellite C2 suite and a helo pad + fuel for AB-139's on the fantail - understanding there is no hanger, hence no on board basing other than alongside or at anchor when deployed in a Liberia-type situation - that's fine to satisfy Helo requirments for medevac, force C2, SF, utility ops, etc.

My principal concern with the MEKO 200 is diminutive size and the open deck for transit stowage - sea air and water can be very damaging to embarked vehicles and electronics, not to mention AB-139's stowed on deck, even shrink-wrapped. Would prefer to see a Danish Absalon - less heavilly armed perhaps - would provide a truly multi-role flexible capability with a substantial Ro-Ro vehicle deck, two LCP landing craft, additional berthing and a helo hanger. But, at 6000+ tons and a complement of 100, Absalon is likely a Joint Support Ship too far. The MEKO 200 is a superb solution at 4000 tons. Keeping my fingers crossed!

yooklid
19th July 2005, 19:30
Now is definetely the time! Sell Eithne ASAP on this rumored trip to South America and order the new Joint Support Ship for soonest delivery. Also, get rid of P21, 22 & 23 and replace with one or two more Le Roisin's or, MEKO 100's in one contract with a B&V MEKO 200 Joint Support Ship. The MEKO 200 would do fine with an appropriate long-haul satellite C2 suite and a helo pad + fuel for AB-139's on the fantail - understanding there is no hanger, hence no on board basing other than alongside or at anchor when deployed in a Liberia-type situation - that's fine to satisfy Helo requirments for medevac, force C2, SF, utility ops, etc.


And how much would all this cost? I know that the money is there in the kitty in Ireland (Having been there last week, I could smell and see all the wealth...) but the will is not, and it dissapates rapidly when confronted with a high cost...

If they are going to replace the P21 class with P51 class, they need to do it on a one for one basis. No more magical Helicopter acts please!

Old Redeye
19th July 2005, 21:17
Here's another option, the Tenix MRV selected by the RNZN, based on an Irish Sea ferry, being built in Holland - Ireland could build & outfit the design in Europe. Another heavyweight at around 8000 tons, but with many capabilities and possibly less expensive than an Absalon, but still les attractive than a MEKO 200.

http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/239.pdf

Old Redeye
19th July 2005, 22:21
Views of the RNZN MRV building in teh Netherlands:

ias
20th July 2005, 08:58
Absalon was quoted in Jane's at under €100 million each.

IAS

mutter nutter
22nd July 2005, 00:14
Absalon was quoted in Jane's at under €100 million each.

IAS

seem's pretty reasonable, what did the 6 new heli's come to, 50 milllion?

Old Redeye
22nd July 2005, 00:33
That seems an unbelievably low price considering a new C-130J-30 runs about $US60-65.

Stoker
22nd July 2005, 00:59
Based on what Irish sea ferry built in Holland?
The helicopter transported on deck doesn't seem a good idea, but tracked and wheeled vehicles would have no problem, go down to the Ferry port any evening and see how many trucks and even new cars come in on the open decks.

Goldie fish
22nd July 2005, 17:23
Shipbuilding is experiencing a relative boom in asia at the moment. Consequently,european builders are subcontracting construction to cheaper dockyards in eastern europe to remain competitive.

Goldie fish
22nd July 2005, 20:17
Based on what Irish sea ferry built in Holland?
The helicopter transported on deck doesn't seem a good idea, but tracked and wheeled vehicles would have no problem, go down to the Ferry port any evening and see how many trucks and even new cars come in on the open decks.

Most vessels of this type do not transport helis on deck,rather the deck is used as a staging point or fuelling point for Helis engaged in whatever operation is being undertaken,such as ferrying stores/casualtied or troops. Its a lot like the truck ferries you see on the UK-Hook of Holland(Hoek Van Holland) run.

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/86483.jpg

Old Redeye
23rd July 2005, 23:58
See for details on the Irish Sea ferry origins of teh RNZN MRV:

http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/239.pdf

Old Redeye
24th July 2005, 00:05
Stoker,

A voyage of several hours in the vehicle deck of a ferry does not exposure vehicles and equipement to the elements to the same degree as a voyage of a week to ten days in the open Atlantic on the low, open rear deck of a MEKO 200 MRV. That's why an enclosed Ro/Ro vehicle deck such as that found on the Absalon is preferable. Another problem is unloading at the destination - the MEKO 200 design needs a vehicle ramp rather than just the crane - unloading via a single crane would be incredibly time consuming and carry considerable risks of damage or worse.

Goldie fish
24th July 2005, 07:38
Storing of vehicles on deck has already been done with no difficulty by the Irish Naval service for many years on voyages to Lebanon and Liberia,and others. It is efficient use of space that otherwise would be idle. Eithnes Helipad currently has hardpoints for 20' TEU,as well as tie down points for Vehicles.
In practice,you make best use of the space thats available to you. If vehicles are to be exposed to the elements,then a certain level of preparation is carried out beforehand. The North sea can be just as harsh as the atlantic at certain times of the year...

Great link from tenix by the way.

DeV
24th July 2005, 14:47
Based on what Irish sea ferry built in Holland?


From the attached .pdf file it is based on a Manx ferry.

The Absalon class
www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm

Old Redeye
24th July 2005, 23:45
Dev,

Are you confused? I don't think Absalon is based on a ferry - more like previous Odense built warships for the RDN. Now, the MRV for New Zealand is based on a ferry, see the tenix link three posts above.

Cheers

Goldie fish
24th July 2005, 23:56
I think we should rule out Absalon from the start. It is way more warship than we will ever need.

Unless that id you are a certain person who believes a thread IMO mods invented some time ago...

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=4188&highlight=absalon

mutter nutter
25th July 2005, 11:12
the problem with the Tenix MRV maybe that it look's too much like a LPD and we all know the crusties will raise shit over it........probably claim we're building it to help the EU RRF to invade Africa again :rolleyes:

Goldie fish
25th July 2005, 12:19
Who cares what the crusties think. Tell them its a ferry to collect refugees from Nigeria.

mutter nutter
25th July 2005, 13:41
Who cares what the crusties think. Tell them its a ferry to collect refugees from Nigeria.

Politician's who hold the wallet,do, or to be more precise, they'd care what influence the crusties would have on the oridinary public who don't know much about the military, oh I'm sure the crusties would not bring up what they themselves would think the ship was for, the usual "we're throwing away neutrality", or going on "imperilist adventures", the issue of how expensive it is, why do we need it, it's an offensive weapon system, would be used against it, no matter what the truth is, it alway's get's buried in bullshit, but you'd have muppet's like Matt Cooper bleeting on again about "expensive toy's for the boy's" like he did when the Javelin's were being bought, I'm sure that gobshite Barret would be all over the place complaining, and you know as well as I do, that one whiff of controversey and the politician's will drop any ship building project like the MRV :frown: , maybe I'm being just pessimistic but it's just a feeling I have about it

sorry for the rant

Goldie fish
25th July 2005, 13:51
The crusties are clueless when it comes to the naval service(much the same as the rest of the country). When GWB visited shannon,their experts decided Eithne was a US naval vessel sent to the shannon estuary to protect him.
As for matt COO COOper he is too liberal for his own good. The anti war made no comment whatsoever when we went to the Old enemy 5 years ago and got them to build us 2 new ships. Its the job of the DF press office to provide the correct and relevant information to prevent distortion of the real story. Emphasising the vessels abilities in:

pollution control,
disaster relief
(if on the off chance the vessel were in a tsunami affected area),
humanitarian aid
,fisheries protection and
troop transport.

Its all about marketing.

DeV
25th July 2005, 20:35
Dev,

Are you confused? I don't think Absalon is based on a ferry - more like previous Odense built warships for the RDN. Now, the MRV for New Zealand is based on a ferry, see the tenix link three posts above.

Cheers

No not confused, from the .pdf file attached to this thread (of the New Zealand MRV) - the tenix link - the MRV is based on a Manx ferry.

Lordinajamjar
26th July 2005, 07:44
Goldie, since it is officially getting about near the time to replace at least one of the P20s' just how soon do you think a firm order might be placed? If one of the P20's is really being decomissioned in 2007 the procurement tender should be about ready to go out on the streets. Do you really believe that anything other than another P50 is really on the cards? These rumours of a larger vessel are they really anything more than just pie in the sky?

Goldie fish
26th July 2005, 11:04
Well the facts,as I have them are:
The east wall of the basin in Haulbowline,never in the past used by the Naval service has been dredged to a depth deeper than the rest of the basin. ask anyone why(regardless of rank) and they will say its for the new ship.

Ask anyone if they heard the rumour,and everyone in the NS will reply"the blue/green ship?"

Everyone in the NS also agrees that Emer is on her last legs.

There are other sources I have that I cannot talk about,needless to say they are reliable.

The only variable is the Dept of Finance.

yooklid
26th July 2005, 17:48
The only variable is the Dept of Finance.

That's a HELL of a variable.

Lordinajamjar
26th July 2005, 19:15
Well Goldie I guess we will soon know then one way or the other. I daresay that the morale of the NS would be dampened a bit then if the rumour turns out to be false. From what you've presenetd though there seems to be reasonable case for optimism. Fingers crossed.

Goldie fish
26th July 2005, 21:39
The way I Understand,how these things work is that the military authorities identify a requirement,look at how others do it,decide what they want and then present their proposals to the department of defence,who propose it to the Dept of finance,who decide whether or not the funds are there. Then it is tendered for,with experts wording the tender in such a way that the type of vessel originally considered can be specified. In its short history,the NS has learnt a lot about ship procurement and design. In the Case of the P50 class,Design was left to KMM, who came back with a vessel that has preformed excellently,with a few minor flaws which were quickly rectified. Eithne Could have been an excellent class too(and is an excellent vessel),If dockyard disputes and internal difficulties within the Defence forces had not hindered it so much.
Peacocks were an opportunity that we happened to be ready for,as a replacement for the Minesweepers had long been sought,and these vessels provided a cost effective option,which has payed off. While the P20 class has for many years been the blueprint for all similar sized coastguard vessels in the north atlantic.
The latter 2 P20 class have a lot more life in them than Emer has. The current concentration in the naval industry towards anti terrorist EEZ patrolling,has provided the market with a wide range of off the shelf options,such as the British River class,KMMs variants(as seen to enter service in the next few years with the NZ navy),and many more.
Our advantage is we have been involved in EEZ patrolling for many years. We know what we need. Our ships are equipped with equipment larger supposedly better equipped Navies only recently realised they needed, such as RIB boarding boats,Visual weapon targetting,low density crew accomodation.
When the decision is made,because of the tight purse strings,the best value for money will be the key.

yooklid
29th July 2005, 21:34
How about some ex-yank equipment?

USS Racine is in reserve

http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/161191.htm

And the Aussies have done a nice job with the one they aquired

http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/manoora/default.htm

Here's an article on the refit

http://www.sutcliffegallery.com.au/kanimbla/refit/refit1.html

Stinger
30th July 2005, 21:44
how many does it take to crew her

pym
31st July 2005, 15:12
Ships Company 182

Stinger
31st July 2005, 19:50
do we have enough crew for her so? I thought there was a manpower shortage in the service at the moment

Goldie fish
1st August 2005, 01:13
I think the second hand stuff has been ruled out.
The above mentioned US vessel is older than the last vessel disposed of by the Irish Naval service, and a lot less modern in equipment. To convert it,as the Aussies did to a vessel which had not been lying rusting at anchor since 1996,would cost as much as a newbuild.

Goldie fish
1st August 2005, 13:40
Based on what Irish sea ferry built in Holland?



The Multi Role Vessel (MRV)

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/2d7ea7b1-a68d-4ca1-81ed-e28013d7f335/0/mrvbowon.jpg

The MRV is contracted-out to Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands, but will be sailed to NZ or Australia for final fit-out. The MRV should be delivered to the RNZN in late 2006.
Tenix's MRV as a design based on a commercial Ro-Ro ship, BEN-MY-CHREE in operation in the Irish Sea. Tenix's existing facilities could handle building the ship, but the Dutch yard offered the best use of the facilities available in order to get the ship to the RNZN as soon as possible.

The MRV will have diesel-electric propulsion and a max speed of 19 knots. The MRV is intended to provide a sealift capability for the transport and deployment of equipment, vehicles and personnel, and to be capable of transferring cargo and personnel ashore when port facilities are not available.

Displacement: 8000 tonnes
Length overall: 131 metres
Beam: 23.4 metres
Speed: 19 knots


Complement: Core ship's company: 53
Flight personnel: 10
Government agencies: 4
Army ship's staff: 7
Trainees: 35
Troops: 250
Total: 360


Propulsion: Diesel engines

Flight deck: Space for two helicopters

Helo
The NH90 helicopter has been selected to replace the RNZAF's Iroquois utility helicopters. It will be able to operate from the MRV carrying Army equipment from the ship to shore.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/ben/images/ben4.jpg
More details on Ben-My-Chree (http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/ben/index.html#ben1)
Interestingly,the original Ben-My-Chree was used as a troopship during WW2.

mutter nutter
1st August 2005, 15:50
Goldie, would the MRV be your personel choice for a new ship, if you had to choose?

Goldie fish
1st August 2005, 16:15
Goldie, would the MRV be your personel choice for a new ship, if you had to choose?

If you mean the Kiwi MRV,No. Its size is excessive for a vessel which would spend the majority of its time engaged in duties it was not designed for,ie routine Patrol.
Its fine for the Kiwis,as they have a large section of the pacific to look after,and have a requirement for a ship to bring their own military vehicles between the islands in their own nation,so a ferry type makes sense. The convenience of Stern and Side loading ramps on the hull is outweighed by the extra maintenance these occasionally used features will require.

The Meko 200 MRV to me is more suitable,as it is designed,to quote Blohm and Voss
as a long range, high endurance cutter with the enhanced flexibility to operate as a true Multi-Role Vessel "MRV" with additional mission capabilities which would be similar to the role Eithne is currently carrying out.
In addition,MEKO ships are far more adaptable in the long term should mid life equipment refits be required.

I assume the Meko designs were aimed at the Kiwi Project Protector plan. The Meko 100 OPV is worthy of consideration for future vessels also,but thats another topic.

Old Redeye
4th August 2005, 03:55
Right On Goldie. Good analysis, correct conclusion. Of course something larger and more capable would be nice, but a MEKO 200 would be excellent return for the expenditure, is sustainable from every perspective and would adequately satisfy NS outstanding requirments. I say order one ASAP and definetely keep the 100 design in mind for subsequent requirements.

ias
4th August 2005, 09:53
Is the MEKO 200 (ANZAC Frigate etc.) not designed to full naval standards with all the associated extra costs that this apparently brings?

Both the Danish and the NZ ships are supposed to be designed to commercial/civil standards in order to save costs are they not?

Even taking into account the above a fleet of MEKO 100s and 200(s) would be nice though, although I thought that the "100" design was beaten by the Roisin design for the OPV?

IAS

Goldie fish
4th August 2005, 10:29
The Meko 200 MRV is not the Anzac frigate. The only feature they share is the designing Dockyard.(Blohm and Voss). the MEKO system refers to a method of construction,rather than a design class.

What do you mean by "naval standards"?

CTU
4th August 2005, 15:44
Golide I think ias confused the Meko 200 frigate with the Meko 200 MRV

ias
4th August 2005, 17:38
Normally in systems designations, the, in this instance, "200" means that both vessels are based on the same design.

IAS

Goldie fish
4th August 2005, 20:35
You would think that, But in reality,Blohm and Voss have their own ideas. Perhaps(and I am guessing here) the "200" only relates to the Hull design(the ship other than the superstructure)?
The Meko principle is that each vessel can be adapted to the customers specifications either during construction or any time after,with little difficulty. Normally this would entail drydocking the vessel and cutting large holes in the hull to remove and replace equipment,but the Meko system allows this kind of refit in the same way a container ship is loaded and unloaded.

The Australian Naval website has a great little tool to explain how this is done.
http://www.navy.gov.au/afp/default.htm

Meanwhile for comparison, The Meko 200 Frigate(above) and the Meko 200 MRV

http://212.72.173.53/media/33821ceaf87ea59cc7fd32632bd5de6a.jpg
http://212.72.173.53/media/de4ccc7c4f463a08b8f7ce5a7a24d0d7.jpg

http://www.blohmvoss.com/

Rooster
4th August 2005, 21:55
If you mean the Kiwi MRV,No. Its size is excessive for a vessel which would spend the majority of its time engaged in duties it was not designed for,ie routine Patrol.
Its fine for the Kiwis,as they have a large section of the pacific to look after,and have a requirement for a ship to bring their own military vehicles between the islands in their own nation,so a ferry type makes sense. The convenience of Stern and Side loading ramps on the hull is outweighed by the extra maintenance these occasionally used features will require.



The pro's of this class are that if a humanitarian disaster were to occur, the vessel could be used for quickly delivering supplies to the stricken zone and this type of role would be easier to justify to the tree huggers and left wingers.

Goldie fish
4th August 2005, 22:23
The Meko vessel could do the exact same job.

ias
4th August 2005, 22:51
GF, according to the B+V website the MRV is the same length as the SAN A-200 Corvette/Frigate and weights 3,900 tonnes, compared to 3,200 for the South African vessel and the Australian/NZ MEKO 200, the ANZAC Frigate is slightly smaller, 117 m compared to 121 m and weights 3,500 tonnes.

IAS

Goldie fish
5th August 2005, 01:26
GF, according to the B+V website the MRV is the same length as the SAN A-200 Corvette/Frigate and weights 3,900 tonnes, compared to 3,200 for the South African vessel and the Australian/NZ MEKO 200, the ANZAC Frigate is slightly smaller, 117 m compared to 121 m and weights 3,500 tonnes.

IAS

I already know this. As I said in my earlier post,which you no doubt read, the Meko 200 Frigate and Meko 200 MRV share the same Hull. Thats why the length is the same. Even looking at the photos I posted above you would notice the obvious similarities in the HULL
However that is where the similarities end. Different engines,different sensor fit,completely different upper deck layout.
Its a common feature of modern ship design. For example the irish Lights vessel Grainuaile has the same hull design as Oil Rig Supply Vessels and Anchor Handling vessels. The Hull found on The Irish P50 class is also found on a coast guard vessel in Mauritius,and forms the basis for the design of the New New Zealand OPV,however neither vessel bears any resemblance to Either Niamh or Roisin.
http://www.jastram.com/imgships/vig-speed455x169.jpg
OPV Vigilant

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/618bbe30-c18d-4015-a0db-ee7ad4fddefb/0/opvicyisland.jpg
New Zealand OPV

Also if you visit the Blohm and Voss website you will see
The concept of the MEKO® 200 MRV has been shaped in numerous discussions with customers looking for a bigger, more versatile OPV.The design objectives for the these vessels are:
Class and merchant marine rules and regulations
Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) equipment
Mission adaptability
Modularity




Please visit this link (http://212.72.173.53/en/page.php?page_id=PG-69) before drawing my attention to any further points. If you have any diffuculty understanding some of th eterms used,try here (http://256.com/gray/docs/nautical.html#h)

pym
5th August 2005, 17:15
Not that my opinion counts for anything, but the MEKO 200 MRV looks on paper, like an excellent choice if the Navy ever do go ahead with ordering a support ship. In fact the brochure couldnt be better marketed for the DoD/DoF; the white APC's, UN containers, not to mention suggesting the merits of deploying it "as a versatile exhibition or diplomatic ship."

Can we have two? :biggrin:

I think ias might mean by "naval standards" - that these ships would have a level of armour etc. which isnt fitted to the navys current vessels, but who knows.

Goldie fish
5th August 2005, 19:50
Armour stopped being fitted to naval vessels when it was realised that Aircraft carriers,not battleships,were to be the capitol ships of the future. I don't know of any serving warship that is armoured these days. Most hulls are built of the same steel that is clad on the hull of the average APC,and any glass on a ship must be able to withstand the pressures of the sea trying to make its way in. The same surfaces because of this would probably withstand certain small arms ammunition, thats as far as it goes.

Barry
5th August 2005, 20:05
The same surfaces because of this would probably withstand certain small arms ammunition, thats as far as it goes.
I wonder how much armour you'd need to stop an exocet missile, a torpedo or a smart bomb?

Wasn't there a story from the invasion of the Falklands of a detachment of Royal Marines nearly sinking an Argentinian corvette with a Milan, before being surrounded and forced to surrender?

Goldie fish
5th August 2005, 20:25
No tangents please barry.

ias
5th August 2005, 20:51
Message #18 in this Previous Thread (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=86&page=1&highlight=civil+standards)

As I was trying to say, not going Military seems to save money, but I'm no expert, I use this board as a learning tool as well as for enjoyment, so no offence to anybody.

IAS

Goldie fish
5th August 2005, 23:41
And we will assist you in the learning process where possible.
Saving money,is always going to be the order of the day.

Goldie fish
27th August 2005, 20:40
OK,the rumour persists.

About 4000 tonnes,Blue/green role.
Word is the finer details are being ironed out. As always budget is the only maybe,but in the past,there has never been a problem,ask,and you shall recieve.

I found this on the Blohm and Voss website....

Meko 200 MRV
http://212.72.173.53/img/meko_200mrv_gr.jpg

Main characteristics ship platform:
Length, overall 121.00 m
Length, DWL 109.00 m
Beam 17.00 m
Draught 4.40 m
Displacement 3,900 t
Range 8,000 nm
Endurance 30 days

Propulsion:
2 high-speed diesel engines 5,200 kW each
2 shafts fitted with controllable pitch propellers
Max. speed > 22 kn

Crew:
Total 150 + 10

Helicopter:
optional
http://212.72.173.53/img/opv_einsatz2.jpg

http://212.72.173.53/en/page.php?page_id=PG-215

Straight from a slideshow of the Flotilla and the future fleet taken today at Haulbowline.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b345/Africatwin/open%20day/S4300448.jpg


Remember where you heard it first! :tri: :tri: :tri:

The Blue/green vessel is expected to enter service in 2007.

Laners
27th August 2005, 22:30
Looks a lot bigger than 3,900 tonnes, and should be intresting to see it getting into the Basin , and a crew of 150 .
I bet there are a lot of writers etc looking to transfer to another branch of the forces right now .

Great bit of info Goldie , good job

Lordinajamjar
27th August 2005, 23:31
Question withdrawn.

Goldie fish
27th August 2005, 23:34
ljj

any chance you could repost this in the relevant thread? It takes ages to split/merge on such a large thread.

hptmurphy
28th August 2005, 00:08
its almost common knowledge given that there was a drawing posted in the base today...

Goldie fish
28th August 2005, 00:33
It is NOW

ias
13th September 2005, 20:25
A question on the photo of the slide above of the "P61" proposal. I was studying it a little closer over the weekend and comparing it to the images on the B+V site. I was surprised to note that the twin funnel arrangement on the image of the "P61" is much further "aft" than on the MEKO 200 MRV images (hope my terminology is correct, if not apologies). This appears to lead to reduced cargo space on deck, a less efficient use of space ahead of the funnels and there also appears to be differences in the "superstructure". I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice these, does anyone know why? Is the "P61" the latest/older image of the "200"? Is a Naval Service "modified" version?

Also, regarding the Absalon, I quoted earlier an incorrect price, the correct price, quoted by Jane's IDR, for the vessel is DKK970million (just for interest).

IAS

Goldie fish
13th September 2005, 22:32
While I cannot answer your question, keep in mind that the Meko system is designed around the end users specifications, rather than an "off the shelf" design.

Earlier posts modified to make comparison easier.

ias
14th September 2005, 17:13
Thanks for the modification above certainly makes it easier to compare.

I've one other sort of related question, if you read the data on the A-100, it says that funnels are unnecessary due to "side exhausts leading through the hull's side shell", anyone know why this has not been the case for the A-200, would leave more deck space?

IAS

sledger
4th November 2005, 23:22
Defence Forces Equipment.
03/11/2005
Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea):
...................................... Planning is well under way on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life...............

Goldie fish
4th November 2005, 23:34
Have you a source for that quote sledger?

pym
5th November 2005, 06:41
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20051103.xml&Node=H10-6#H10-6

it confirms the purchase of 15 further Mowags too

Lordinajamjar
5th November 2005, 08:04
Here it is.....


Information Zoom I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 27 together. The gross allocation for the Defence and Army Pensions Votes was €566 million in 1995, €789 million in 2000 and €934 million in 2005. The level of expenditure on defence in any particular country is influenced by a variety of factors, including that country’s political and security environment, its history, demography and economy. While defence spending in this country has fallen as a percentage of GNP in recent years, this is not due to any reduction in the level of defence expenditure, but rather because of the massive increase in GNP.

There has been an unprecedented level of expenditure on infrastructure and equipment for the Defence Forces in recent years. This was made possible by the Government’s decision that pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be fully reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment. More than €192 million was spent on the capital investment programme for the upgrade of barracks, accommodation and other facilities between 1997 and the end of 2004. This year’s Defence Estimate includes a further €19 million for such capital works.

Substantial progress has also been made in recent years with the acquisition of modern equipment for the Army, Air Corps and the Naval Service. During the past six years, more than €200 million has been expended on the purchase of 65 armoured personnel carriers and the Javelin missile system for the Army, new patrol vessels for the Naval Service and new trainer aircraft for the Air Corps. Last January, I signed contracts for six new helicopters for the Air Corps costing more than €60 million. Planning is well underway on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life and a further 15 armoured personnel carriers, APC, will be added to our fleet. It is expected that the contract for the additional 15 APCs will be signed by the end of the year. Further details of the re-equipment programme are contained in a reply to a later question on the Order Paper.


Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea): Information Zoom I would take issue with the views expressed by PDFORRA on the subject of defence spending, with particular regard to expenditure on modern equipment. The position is that there has been an unprecedented level of expenditure on infrastructure and equipment for the Defence Forces in recent years. I have seen proof positive of this investment in my visits to military barracks around the country and my experience is that the morale of soldiers is generally very high from the equipment and infrastructural perspective.

The increased level of expenditure on equipment for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service was made possible by the Government’s decision that pay savings arising from the reorganisation of the Defence Forces set out in the White Paper of 2000, along with proceeds from the sale of surplus properties, would be reallocated for investment in modern facilities and equipment.

Investment in new equipment for the Defence Forces is provided for under various subheads of the Defence Vote relating to defensive equipment, mechanical transport, aircraft, ships and naval stores, engineering, communications and information technology equipment etc. All elements of the Defence Forces, the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and the Reserve have benefited from the investment in new equipment.

Over the past six years, over €200 million has been expended on the purchase of 65 armoured personnel carriers for the Army, new patrol vessels for the Naval Service and new trainer aircraft for the Air Corps.

The programme of investment is continuing apace. Last January, I signed contracts for six new helicopters for the Air Corps costing over €60 million. Planning is well under way on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships to reach the end of their economic life and a further 15 armoured personnel carriers will be added to our current fleet. It is expected that the contract for the additional 15 APCs will be signed by the end of the year.

There are also ongoing acquisitions of modern equipment for use by soldiers on operational duties. The individual soldier is now required to carry an array of equipment whilst engaged on such duties. In that regard, one of the essential ongoing equipment acquisition projects relates to the provision of a modern integrated protection and load carrying system for members of the Defence Forces. This involves, inter alia, the personal protective equipment consisting of body armour and helmet. The aim is to have a new, lighter protective system, consisting of body armour and helmet, which is compatible with all current and future systems required for each soldier.

A tender competition is currently in train for the provision of body armour for the individual soldier. It is expected that an order will be placed shortly for 6,000 units. In addition, a separate tender competition for helmets is also currently in train for the acquisition of 12,000 units. It is expected that an order will be placed in the near future. A tender competition for the replacement of the existing FN 9mm Browning automatic pistol within the Defence Forces is also in train. It is expected that an order will be placed in the first quarter of 2006.

The equipment issued to the Defence Forces is in keeping with the most modern requirements and the highest international standards. The ongoing investment in the Defence Forces will ensure that this remains to be the case and that the Defence Forces are suitably well equipped to carry out their roles both at home or overseas.

Question No. 26 answered with Question No. 18.

Question No. 27 answered with Question No. 11.

McCarthy
23rd November 2005, 15:06
"Planning is well underway on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships"


This is all it says about the NS

The Sultan
23rd November 2005, 15:27
From here (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16790416.1132755359.Q4R5n8Oa 9dUAADyXqYY&modele=jdc_34)


“Planning is well underway on the replacement programme for the next Naval Service ships*. Another fifteen armoured personnel carriers will be added to our current fleet and I hope to sign the APC contract by the end of this year.”

There ya go.

ias
23rd November 2005, 16:55
Thanks!

I looked at the press release on the GoI website and saw it mentions the 2008-2010 for the three P21 class ships.

I had hoped it was something more definite.


IAS

DeV
23rd November 2005, 17:38
Under the established 30 year rule the following Naval Vessels are coming towards the end of their economic life:

· L.É. Emer (P21) due for replacement in early 2008,
· L.É. Aoife (P22) due for replacement in late 2009,
· L.É. Aisling (P23) due for replacement in mid 2010,

http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/Release+ID/6F45457C0070B8D4802570BC005DCB40?OpenDocument

Goldie fish
23rd November 2005, 17:43
Nothing new there.

Goldie fish
12th December 2005, 00:18
Another mention in todays sunday world that the Minister has authorised the NS to seek replacement vessels for 3 of the current fleet.

ODIN
12th December 2005, 01:57
any time frame given?!?

Goldie fish
12th December 2005, 05:47
See post #133

ODIN
12th December 2005, 11:39
Ah i had assumed that the
the Minister has authorised the NS to seek replacement vessels for 3 of the current fleet. meant it would have been done ahead of the current scheduel

Goldie fish
19th December 2005, 19:51
Cdr Mark Mellet has an interesting article in this months Cosantoir about the proposed "Blue/Green" ship for anyone interested.

Maybe he reads this section?

yooklid
19th December 2005, 21:35
Considering this topic is now turning up in the AFV section, he's probably the only one :biggrin:

andy
19th December 2005, 21:35
what did you make of the article goldie ? Personally I thought he rambled on a bit.

The ship in that article looks perfect for the Defence Forces needs in the future. Even having it for libera, Kosovo, East Timor, lebannon etc would be excellent. He should have concentrated more on that side of things than teritorial waters IMHO etc.

I just hope that a ship of that calibre wouldnt replace two patrol ships. That would be a big disapointment.

Goldie fish
20th December 2005, 00:30
One for one replacement is current government policy, regardless of size. The ship in the article has already been discussed at length here.
And its Blohm and Voss.

I assume his "rambling" is to explain exactly why such a vessel would be required? As I mentioned here earlier, it is being promoted as a vessel to assist in humanitarian aid missions, rather than an amphib transport. Given the quasi green agenda supposed by our government, this would be easier to sell.

I only skimmed it earlier(in KFC) so I have not read the article in full.

andy
20th December 2005, 11:54
I only skimmed through it as well. I must read the article more throughly. It is an excellent idea though, and it would meet both needs of the military and humanitarian missions. Maybe the government could splash out and get the C-130 as well for the relief work.

Goldie fish
20th December 2005, 20:22
Dont mention C130 in the naval section.

andy
31st December 2005, 11:46
New fleet could give Naval Service aid role

New fleet could give Naval Service aid role




Ireland could provide a marine-based response to international humanitarian crises when the Naval Service's fleet is renewed, according to a senior officer. Lorna Siggins, Marine Correspondent, reports.

Ireland's new claim on Continental Shelf limits, and violent weather forecast as a result of climate change, will also require larger, multipurpose ships, Cdr Mark Mellett of the LE Eithne said.

Defence Forces planners are working to replace up to six of the fleet's eight ships. Three vessels, the Emer, Aoife and Aisling, will reach their "critical life span" in 2010, while a further three will reach this stage before 2015.

The planned fleet renewal comes as Ireland is making a partial submission to the UN on an uncontested area of the Continental Shelf, extending beyond the 200-mile limit and including potential resource reserves.

If upheld, the extension would increase the Naval Service's area of responsibility.

Writing in the current issue of An Cosantóir, the Defence Forces journal, Cdr Mellett cites the example of New Zealand and Denmark, both of which have ships capable of "blue/green" or sea- and shore-based operations.

Such vessels are designed primarily for "blue environment", but can "swing" to deliver services to the "green environment".

The design allows for a flexible deck area, capable of carrying a variety of loads for use in humanitarian crises. There is an on-board medical facility and accommodation for evacuations or troop deployment, Cdr Mellet says.

Cdr Mellett, writing in a personal capacity, notes a recent climatology study shows the most extreme wave conditions are in storm-track regions west of Ireland; this will require ships that can withstand such environment.

He also notes that the recent Ireland Aid Review committee's report highlighted the need for the State to develop the capability to react more quickly to international crises.

Three recent major crises were natural disasters: the Asian tsunami, hurricane Katrina in the US and the earthquake in Pakistan.

More than half of the world's population lives within 30 nautical miles of the sea. It is thought this could rise to 70 per cent by 2020, Cdr Mellett says, making the case for greater Naval Service capability. Two-thirds of the world's cities with populations of over 2.5 million are located on the coastline or on estuaries.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1231/3121105383HM4NAVY.html

© The Irish Times

The Blue Max
31st December 2005, 13:41
Interesting Stuff this form of writing in a news paper is the exactly the kind of good P.R image im sure the Navy would like to be portraying to the general public about it future types of vessels aswell as there missions both at home and aboard. So Here to more of the same...

andy
31st December 2005, 13:51
I just hope the government backs up any plans to extend the uncontested area of the Continental Shelf, extending beyond the 200-mile limit with more resources for the navy.

This of course would be ships and one of those ships being a blue/green capable one. The next few years will be very intresting.

The Blue Max
31st December 2005, 14:05
Very True it will hopefully mean that Ships will increase in capability meaning larger ships better utilization of personnel Permanent and Reserve (which is already on a high in the NS) and one would wish if extension is authorised it be force starter to enhancement increased role for IAC Casas and hopefully make the Goverment to re-read the Whitepaper and purchase additional Casas MPAs to patrol are enlargened teritorial sea area, Only time will tell...

Goldie fish
31st December 2005, 14:14
If the 200 mile limit is extended, then it will put an end to the Myth that an 8 ship Navy is sufficient. Ask any of the current crews.
More ships
Smaller Crews
I understand that 200 days at sea a year is becoming the Norm for those on the Larger vessels. Having more than 6 OPVs would increase the assets at sea, without burning out the crews.

joe
31st December 2005, 21:40
In the Times today theres an article by Lorna Siggin about the whole Blue/Green ship proposal.(I think its posted in the news section). In it she said that the aplication for the extension is giong ahead. Hopefully things will get better for the Air Corp and NS because its gonna be an aweful embarrasment if we even attempt to patrol that huge extra area with the existing fleet. Given that the area in question is uncontested I can't see why the extension will not be granted.

Goldie fish
31st December 2005, 21:45
Read post 146 (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showpost.php?p=109150&postcount=146) this thread.

Goldie fish
3rd January 2006, 22:25
Cdr Mellett gets a mention in seascapes also(Not sure if it was mentioned on the radio show, but it is on their website).


NEW SHIP FOR THE NAVY ?
Commander Mark Mellett of the Naval Service argues the case for a new type of Naval vessel in the current edition of the Defence Forces' magazine, An Cosantoir, in the context of Ireland's claim to one of the largest ocean areas in Western Europe. He makes the case that, in addition to the 200-mile EEZ - exclusive economic zone - certain States may also exercise sovereign rights over the seabed and sub-seabed of the Continental Shelf and Ireland has a large Shelf and would be entitled to submit a claim to the United Nations for an area of ocean extending far beyond the 200-mile limit. "This potentially will bring an area of almost 1 million square kilometres of the North-East Atlantic under national jurisdiction. In addition to natural resource benefits that may be derived from this area come responsibilities that Ireland is required to uphold under international law," he says. These seas are generally regarded as amongst the most hostile in the world, so naval planners are looking at the fleet replacement programme up to the year 2040 and beyond. Commander Mellett argues that the case for larger ships for the Navy with greater survivability and a capability to withstand the harsh North East Atlantic conditions further offshore is clear, if Ireland is to exercise sovereignty over its Continental Shelf.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/story/1073743.html

Goldie fish
6th January 2006, 14:43
More details on the Continental shelf submission can be found at the link below.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/irl05/irl_exec_sum.pdf

pym
6th January 2006, 14:58
Is there a precedent for this with other countries? It would be nice to think theres an economically viable supply of oil down there

The Blue Max
6th January 2006, 15:41
This could seriously be of great benefit to the Irish Economy And State. It will give extended Fishing Grounds aswell the possibility of finding lucraitive Natural resoures such as Oil,Gas etc.. Which could have enmourous benefits the Irish Economy And Energy Network. "Sounds Abit Like A Geography Lesson Does'nt It!!)

Sea Toby
23rd August 2006, 04:06
I wonder whether the MEKO 200 MRV moves enough of the army's equipment? If the price of the MEKO 200 MRV is near 60 million Euros, two would cost 120 million Euros. Wouldn't Ireland be better off with a New Zealand MRV at 90 million Euros and another Roisin at 30 million Euros, both would cost around 120 million Euros. Having one ship with twice the sealift capacity is in my mind preferrable to two undersized vessels. New Zealand intends to use its MRV for patrols in the Southern Ocean with very heavy seas. Surely its 8000 tons of displacement will be more than enough to patrol Ireland's extended EEZ in the eastern Atlantic.

From the B&V website the MEKO 200 MRV has 200 lane meters of vehicle space, lift 550 tons of equipment, and supports 150 army personnel. The NZ MRV has 403 lane meters of vehicle space, and supports 250 army personnel. She carries twice as much weight: five 10 ton helicopters, plus 403 Lane Metres which could hold: 16 LAV, 14 LOV, 7 UNIMOGS, 2 Ambulances, 2 Flat bed trucks, 7 LOV Trailers, 2 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts and 4 four wheel vehicles and up to 33 containers.

If the NZ MRV is much too large, and the MEKO 200 MRV is too small, surely a smaller ferry design similar to NZ's MRV could be designed to fit Ireland's needs better. Keep in mind New Zealand is a small nation and can't afford large expensive ships either. Any blue-green ship should match the army's requirements for a company and the lane meters for its equipment.

You never know in an emergency of a humanitarian mission whether a proper port will be available. For example, the cruise ship docks at Cozumel, Mexico were wiped out by one of the hurricanes last year. Being able to discharge troops and equipment via landing craft/helicopters are important assets of the NZ MRV.

Goldie fish
23rd August 2006, 05:46
I think now that Lebanon is back on the agenda again we may see the government realising the usefulness of having a dedicated vessel capable of carrying a respectable amount of military stores. The P20s used to do it in the old days and usually went to Haifa, but this may not always be available to them.

Sea Toby
8th October 2006, 18:11
The Mexican Sierra class are 74.4m x 10.5m x 3.5m, 1340 tons full load. Range 3800nm/18 knots. Top speed of 18 knots. Crew of 76, have accomodations for 16 more personnel. Armament is the 57mm gun, plus small arms. The Sierras have a helicopter deck and hangar, the Durangos, very similar, have a second gun instead of a helicopter hangar aft. Being built in Mexico for less than $30 million US each.

To move a battalion of troops, Ireland will have to purchase a Rotterdam type of vessel or an Italian flat top. The price will exceed 150 million Euros.

Since the minister mentioned a 100 million Euro MRV after a speech to cadets with the media, Ireland would be able to purchase a NZ MRV converted ferry or the smallest Damen Schelde Dutch Enforcer/Rotterdam design, but the sealift would probably be only for a infantry group, not a battalion.

The stretched OPVs or the Meko 200 MRV should cost even less, from 40-60 million Euros, but the vehicle space and trooplift would be around half of the NZ MRV or the smallest Dutch Enforcer design, around 200 lane meters or less. A destroyer sized MRV similar to the Danish Absalon will also run 100 million Euros, but will have 280 lane meters of vehicle space.

As I have noted before, I am under the impression that if New Zealand needed 390 lane meters to move its LAV equipped infantry company group, I figure Ireland will need something similar. I agree, a tactical sealift capability with at least two landing craft should be required, very useful for over the beach style landings. I am under the impression that the Irish Naval Service is selling itself short suggesting buying the Meko 200 MRV. The army should state its preferred requirement, whether to move half a company group, a full company group, or a battalion.

After the army has stated its requirement, then its up to the government to fund it. Frankly, in my opinion, it would be a very large mistake to acquire a ship which don't meet the army's requirement. If Ireland can acquire a ship similar to the NZ MRV which has twice the capacity of the Meko 200 MRV, for less than the 100 million Euros the minister mentioned, Ireland should at least buy a blue green ship which can move at least a company group. At that price I don't see a ship moving a battalion.

Bitter Boy
6th January 2007, 16:11
In todays Irish Times. Plans for 1 Multi role vessel - 120 m long and 2 vessels of 80 m long.

Please God may the economy keep going!

Goldie fish
6th January 2007, 17:01
http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?t=10184

Thats smaller than Absalon and Canterbury.

pym
7th January 2007, 00:10
So more of the Roisin class then, or possibly the RN River Class PV... or maybe something completely different.

As regards the 120m, that's the Meko 200MRV from the presentation. Is there anything else in that size class?

mutter nutter
7th January 2007, 19:04
http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?t=10184

Thats smaller than Absalon and Canterbury.
the smallest of the Enforcer class is about 120 meters, although it looks like this requirement was written for the MEKO 200

Anyone think it'll come with the landing craft?:biggrin:

Slacker
7th January 2007, 21:55
*sigh*

Naval version of "can we get Air Corp Jets now?"

Goldie fish
8th January 2007, 02:33
Peacock class:
Max speed: 25-30 knots
Draught: 2.7 metres

P50 class:
Max speed: 23 knots
Draught: 3.8 metres

Peacocks are faster and can operate in shallower waters. They are the only real warships in the Naval Service (the rest being designed to civilian standard)

Where did you come up with that idea?

What does it have to do with the Proposed Blue/Green ship(i.e the title of this thread?)

mutter nutter
8th January 2007, 16:04
*sigh*

Naval version of "can we get Air Corp Jets now?"

ok, it's going to be a 120 metre 100million euro worth of a row boat...yay for pessimisim

Goldie fish
8th January 2007, 21:46
*sigh*

Naval version of "can we get Air Corp Jets now?"


The only people who want Jets in the air corps are people who are not in the Air Corps.

However, this project is a reality. So go and take your attitude somewhere else. We are not interested here.

Dogwatch
8th January 2007, 22:37
http://www.tk-marinesystems.de/bilder/produkte/naval_ships/mrd.jpg

Unfortunately a bit large and probably out of our price range! Can't find info on their 7500 tonne version.

MHD 150: Amphibious and Sealift Capabilities – Challenges for global engaged Navies

The December 2004 tsunami disaster and earthquakes on Sumatra shiffted focus to disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. One of the the challenges, which recently became therefore apprent to navies, is the capability to sealift and deploy vehicles, materials and personal in a short time and sizable number. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems developed the MHD 150 as a versatile and multi-functional systems for such military and civil purposes.
The Multi Role Helicopter Dock Ship’s general design is based on a dockship capable of carrying two LCUs or howercraft. Its vehicle deck has about 800 lane meters, an extended helicopter deck with five landing pads, a landing pad on the main deck aft and a hangar for 11 helicopters (NH90-type) with ample space for service and maintenance.
The MHD 150 can transport and support over 750 fully equipped troops and their vehicles and armament. The amphibious units are either of LCU type MK10 or a LCAC hovercraft type and two type MK6 landing craft mechanised LCM(T) wich are stowed in a recess, port and starboard, on Deck 01. Further ample space in/for Hospital is availiable.
Main Specification:
Length over all 182,00 m
Length in waterline 174,00 m
Beam 26,50 m
Depth to main deck 16,85 m
Design draught 6,00 m
Displacement (full load) 15,000 t
Propulsion plant 2 x 11MW
Speed max. 22 kts
Range 8,000 nm / 16,5 kts
Complement 142 Crew / 776 Troops

Goldie fish
8th January 2007, 22:46
ThyssenKrupp are what Blohm and Voss used to be.

Sea Toby
9th January 2007, 06:20
Earlier I posted a link to two pictures of HDW's smaller sealift vessels, or MRV, of 8,000 and 10,000 tons offered to Portugal, a link to a May 2005 Armada magazine article. There are many pictures posted of the NZ MRV and the MEKO 200 MRV. Later in this thread there is a picture of a Guardian type vessel. I suspect the MEKO 200 MRV is favored by the navy, I have not heard of what the army favors yet.

If the cabinet is going to decide to buy this summer, I suspect the tender process will proceed soon.

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 07:04
Link to sea toby's earlier post.

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showpost.php?p=135008&postcount=244

Another vessel mentioned in that article is the Enforcer 8000.
http://static.flickr.com/18/23815132_8d975140d1_o.jpg
It is 129.9m long, with a 24.8m beam and a 5.2m draught,

ODIN
9th January 2007, 14:08
Realistically, what are the chances that Air Corps Helis are going to operate on the new MRV, even if only for a short period on a resupply mission. And secondly, would the new AW139s be a suitable airframe for use on ship, or would this be a chance to argue for getting one or two NH90s which could be used on board as required

pym
9th January 2007, 14:19
I don't think 1 or 2 NH90's would make any sense - especially if their role was to back up peace support operations. 4 or 5 would be an absolute minimum. This is because if you send over 2 NH90's to support an operation such as in Liberia - how do the pilots back home train and keep up their hours on the type?

I think that if the 139's were to operate from the MRV, it would be in a simple delivery role. They would be lashed to the deck, transported to Liberia, rigged up and flown off the deck to be based on land. Then when their mission is over after a 6 months or whatever, they're flown back onto the MRV and transported home.

I'd very much doubt we'll see them on normal patrol missions with the NS.

Apparently though, the last number of cadets for the IAC have to be willing to serve at sea. It was written on their forms. This was mentioned a while back.

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 17:20
The days of deploying a mission specific heli with a ship seem to be gone for all but the larger navies.The trend worldwide(including the Arleigh Burke Flight 1 and 2 vessels)is for a helideck only. However what you have here is an ability to land helis. Be they coastguard or other air arms. When the ship has no need for them they can be off doing whatever else they can do.
As pym said however, if you needed to move helis, you have the deckspace. When the deck is clear, open them up and fly them off.(while at anchor)

ODIN
9th January 2007, 17:23
Point taken...

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 17:30
Link to sea toby's earlier post.

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showpost.php?p=135008&postcount=244

Another vessel mentioned in that article is the Enforcer 8000.
http://static.flickr.com/18/23815132_8d975140d1_o.jpg
It is 129.9m long, with a 24.8m beam and a 5.2m draught,
bit on the big side?

pym
9th January 2007, 17:45
.... and undergunned in my humble opinion.

Aidan
9th January 2007, 18:26
All of the press reports (and images posted here) would seem to indicate that the NS are intent on the Meko 200 MRV. If they go to tender though, which they probably will, they will have to consider a number of designs.

Is there any clear definition anywhere of precisely what it is they require? Starting with the counterfactual, theres no suggestion of a well deck, so we can rule that out, along with, apparently, hangars for helicopters. It is unclear from what has been made public as to whether there is a requirement for internal stowage for vehicles, apart from the fact that the NS images seem to imply deck stowage. Tender documents for this would make for very interesting reading.

All the more interesting when you consider that, if all of this order comes from the one manufacturer, the NS could be looking at 2 new classes of ship, a P-60 class (Meko 200 size) and a P-70 class of around the 2,000t displacement (Meko 100?). Unless a potential builder could be persuaded to build the P50 design of course. Thats three new ships in one lump. And then, in 2014, the Eithne and Orla and Ciara will start to hit 30 years old. 3 more new, if they stick to a 8 ship NS. And at least 5 years worth of waltering in the interim. :biggrin:

btw, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) own Blohm and Voss, but B and V still exist in their own right, albeit as a mere subsidiary. Still wrong though, having Thyssen and Krupp as one company. Whats next, all the 'baby Farbens' re agglomerating into IG Farben?

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 20:05
All the more interesting when you consider that, if all of this order comes from the one manufacturer, the NS could be looking at 2 new classes of ship, a P-60 class (Meko 200 size) and a P-70 class of around the 2,000t displacement (Meko 100?). Unless a potential builder could be persuaded to build the P50 design of course. Thats three new ships in one lump. And then, in 2014, the Eithne and Orla and Ciara will start to hit 30 years old. 3 more new, if they stick to a 8 ship NS. And at least 5 years worth of waltering in the interim. :biggrin:

btw, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) own Blohm and Voss, but B and V still exist in their own right, albeit as a mere subsidiary. Still wrong though, having Thyssen and Krupp as one company. Whats next, all the 'baby Farbens' re agglomerating into IG Farben?

The way I read the reports, the plan is for an extended version of the P50 class, 80m in length. I assume the original designer, Aker yards, would be responsible for the design of such improvisations.
The P50 class is in service seven years now, and no doubt the users already know exactly where the improvements can be made, in the same way as they knew where improvements would be made to Niamh from Roisins original design. I don't forsee a totally new design for a P20 replacement. The P50s are excellent, with some tweaking, they can be better.

On your second point, there is a trend in military industry to combine efforts. EADS as an example. Even the UK LTAV tender more or less assured that regardless of the final outcome of the tender process, Alvis would be involved in the construction.
How many firearms manufacturers do H&K own?
One parent company to make the bid, and sub contract the work out to their partners to guarantee delivery on time, and on schedule.
Everyone wins.

Aidan
9th January 2007, 20:44
Agreed on the stretched P50s - wouldn't take much of a stretch to bring them to 80m either. €45m looks a lot though, which is what had me intrigued.

On the issue of ThyssenKrupp, I was just refering to the historical issue - Krupp were among the largest and most successful steel (and arms) manufacturers in history. Having them join with Thyssen just seems wrong*.

The vertical integration of steel makers and dockyards, and the benefits for buyers is a separate one (and one with a long history in Germany) - in general its a good thing, allows for greater economies of scale and efficiency. There comes a point in all of this merger activity though when competition gets hurt when the number of available suppliers gets small - easier for a cartel to form. In reality, given the type of project, just how many yards are out there that have the reputation (which will be an issue in any €180m contract) and ability to deliver quickly? 3 or 4 in Europe?

The issue around the Blue/Green ship is that clarity over requirements is critical in any project. Leaving aside the obvious benefits of buying off the shelf, the procurement process for this has to be squeeky clean. I'm sure no one wants a repeat of the medium lift helicopter contract.:eek:

*No prizes for guessing who got a copy of "Wages of Destruction - The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy" for Christmas.

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 21:17
Are there any other classes of ships out there that could be put in for this requirement?, because it looks like it was written specifically for the Meko 200 MRV

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 21:28
The Enforcer 8000 is the only one that comes close. It would be nice to know who else tendered for the Kiwi MRV, apart from the winning outcome.

Dogwatch
9th January 2007, 21:46
bit on the big side?

Did the Minister not say 120 metres, 129 isn't much bigger. It's probably 129 LOA, but a WL of 120 or so, how bad!

Dogwatch
9th January 2007, 21:54
Realistically, what are the chances that Air Corps Helis are going to operate on the new MRV, even if only for a short period on a resupply mission.
Probably very good in a Peace Support/Enforcement Mission or training for Peace Support/Enforcement. The IAC have always been very keen to deploy units overseas, just not very keen for FP on NS ships. Take into account that the MRV will be a much bigger platform than P31, much more stable and better comfort, which was a huge factor in the IAC not wanting to operate on P31.


And secondly, would the new AW139s be a suitable airframe for use on ship, or would this be a chance to argue for getting one or two NH90s which could be used on board as required

Check with the 'don' heads, but the AW139 would not require huge modifications to make it suitable for deck landings. The landing gear fitted as standard is strong enough (unlike Dauphins where only two had the strengthened landing gear). Therefore it would not be a huge modification to fit a harpoon and flotation bags (so sources say).

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 21:55
Did the Minister not say 120 metres, 129 isn't much bigger. It's probably 129 LOA, but a WL of 120 or so, how bad!
I meant the weight, 8000T might be a bit big for what they want, a patrol ship that can carry vehicles and stuff.....anyone know how much an Enforcer 8000 costs now?


http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/Folder_enforcer_large.pdf
nice PDF of the different enforcer models.

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 21:57
P
Therefore it would not be a huge modification to fit a harpoon and flotation bags (so sources say).

I think the 139s already have flotation bags fitted, they were in the photos of them arriving in Ireland.

Dogwatch
9th January 2007, 22:11
I think the 139s already have flotation bags fitted, they were in the photos of them arriving in Ireland.

Thought they might have just been a fit for their transit to home soil, but even so, it shows how little has to be done to them, so they can operate off a deck. Nice one mutter nutter.

How long they operate for with ships is another question, but maybe when the aircraft were being spec'd it was thought about!
Whether they will operate is probably another day's work, but at least it would appear that the DF is going the right direction about inter-service operability!

Sea Toby
9th January 2007, 22:19
While the total number of 21 shipyards were released, their names weren't. But through the haze we have discovered that Tenix, ADI, Hyundai, Austal, Vosper Singapore, Bath Iron Works, Ingalls, Damen Schelde, Italian, Spanish, French, and German shipyards tendered.

It will be interesting how many tenders Ireland receives. New Zealand eventually brought the number down to two finalists, Tenix with its Merwede designed ferry, and ADI with its Damen Schelde 8000 ton Enforcer design. ADI and Hyundai for different reasons sued, and lost in New Zealand courts.

Merwede did such a good job on the MRV, Tenix also gave them the second OPV hull build too. All of the second OPVs hull modules transported to Melbourne via the MRV's flight deck.

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 22:27
interesting...could any of you lads who know more of this subject then me, see an enforcer class ship at 8000T chasing Spanish fishing trawlers around the West coast?...it just seems a little oversized to be doing that kind of work to me....I'd love it if we got one, but, I can't see it.:frown:

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 22:31
Why not?
The larger the vessel, the rougher the weather she can stay out in. Some spanish trawlers are the same size as the current naval vessels.

Consider that there are Aircraft carriers and Destroyers in the Gulf boarding wood dhows every day of the week.

The job has to be done.

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 22:39
Why not?
The larger the vessel, the rougher the weather she can stay out in. Some spanish trawlers are the same size as the current naval vessels.

Consider that there are Aircraft carriers and Destroyers in the Gulf boarding wood dhows every day of the week.

The job has to be done.
we can only hope the people making the decisions have the same attitude GF...fingers and toes crossed

Farel'
9th January 2007, 22:39
I suppose you don't need to be a meteorologist to see the weather has been crap for the past two months -

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 22:41
I suppose you don't need to be a meteorologist to see the weather has been crap for the past two months -
Sky's always Azure blue in my World...but thats just me:wink:

ias
9th January 2007, 22:47
As posted earlier, according to Jane's, Thyssen is now offering 2 new patrol ships, the Guardian, 80m, 1700+ tonnes, Cost Guard type vessel, at approx. €30 million and the Sentinel, 85m, 2000 tonnes, more naval patrol vessel, but no price quoted in Jane's.

Two of either of these, preferably the Sentinel, along with a Meko 200 MRV, looks quite good on paper though the Enforcer 8000 looks good.

IAS

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 23:04
I suppose you don't need to be a meteorologist to see the weather has been crap for the past two months -


I was just thinking there how often the ferries have been cancelled in the last month, and thats just on the Irish sea....
I wonder if the ship the Kiwi MRV is based on kept going?

http://www.weather.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/dec06.pdf

Wettest December since 1999

Wind and elements: Mean windspeeds for the month were between 9 and 13 knots generally (17 and 24km/hour)
and up to 18 knots (33km/hour) in the north and northwest. These were the highest mean winds for December since
1999. The highest gust of the month, 79 knots (146 km/hour), was measured at Malin Head on the 31st, its highest
December gust since 1998

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/charts/uk/atlantic_pressure_070109.jpg

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 23:05
Does anyone have a clue about what they are looking for in this new ship, is it supposed to carry the minimum of stuff in which case it's probably the Meko, or is it supposed to carry everything and the kitchen sink, and the soldiers too?

Sea Toby
9th January 2007, 23:12
The picture above is a picture of a HDW MRV design offered to Portugal. Here is a link to the Damen Schelde Enforcer series, from 8000 tons upward.

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

The army should get what it wants for sea lift, and should set the size of an MRV, not the navy in my opinion. Deciding factors should be the lane meters for equipment, and accommodations for the number of troop lift. Whether the army wishes to bring a few of the air corps AB139 helicopters along should also be considered with a sizeable hangar for maintenance.

Does Ireland wish to move a battalion, a infantry group, or half a infantry group? Without any large transport aircraft such as a Hercules, this is the time for Ireland to choose well its MRV ship. The navy will only operate one vessel for joint operations. The navy has its hands full patrolling Ireland's EEZ as is.

The Ben My Chree, Commodore Clipper, Hammodde, and Duodde have never failed to sail, very dependable and very seaworthy. As noted the Canterbury sailed through sea state 8 seas on its journey to Melbourne from Rotterdam.

mutter nutter
9th January 2007, 23:16
hmm, on that link Sea Toby put up, they have one of the enforcers designed missions being "law enforcement", maybe a good sign, plus it's ablity to carry 240 troops sound just about right to me.....I guess it will come down to price in the end, could we get one on the outlined budget.

Goldie fish
9th January 2007, 23:50
I wouldn't say your priority is moving troops. That is best done by air.
However it is the use of TEUs in most overseas missions for everything from weapon stores to Field hospitals, to water purification units that is the real key.
We have the trucks to get them wherever they need to go inland. DROPS provides us with a very efficient way of movint them inland. However getting the box to the deployment is where you need your MRV. This is why Deckspace is the priority. Secondary to that is Vehicles. Parallel to this is the ability to run a C3 function from the ship. This can also come in the form of a TEU.

(T.E.U=Twenty foot equivalent unit, or container box to the rest of us)

Remember in the past we discussed that one of the roles this ship would be expected to undertake is Disaster relief, such as if a Tsunami like disaster were to strike the eastern atlantic coastlines, which is quite possible. Spain have a Rotterdam type ship designed from the outset for just such a task, with military lift as a secondary role.

Sea Toby
9th January 2007, 23:58
New Zealand purchased their Merwede designed and built MRV ferry for US $100 million, three years ago. At that time in Euros 90 million, but the Euro has gained on the US dollar in the past three years. The second finalist was just a bit more, the 8000 tons Enforcer, so I would suspect both could be acquired within a budget of Euros 90 million or so today.

Earlier in this thread there was speculation that the MEKO would cost less, being a slightly smaller vessel. The Guardian and Sentinel for less. Yes, I believe all could be acquired within the annouced budget.

mutter nutter
10th January 2007, 18:33
the Singaporean Endurence class is nice, 6000T, but it maybe a little too big, 141 metres, that and it has a well deck, but a nice ship all the same
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2001/apr/07apr01_nr/07apr01_fs.html

Sea Toby
10th January 2007, 20:01
Yes, its a very nice ship too. Many in NZ thought Singapore's Endeavour class was in the lead, but their government went in a different direction. New Zealand had 21 different tenders, I wonder how many Ireland will receive? Frankly, I liked the Italian baby flat tops best, but they were too big and more expensive.

I think the Irish naval service has the MEKO 200 MRV in their sights. I just don't know if the army thinks its large enough. We do know several Irish defence personnel looked over the Merwede MRV in Rotterdam, and the Dutch allowed Irish forces to use their Enforcer type Rotterdam in Liberia.

In my mind the HDW 8000 ton ship is very similar with the NZ MRV, similar size with similar lane meters.

So far, I haven't seen any specifications from the Irish army....

mutter nutter
10th January 2007, 20:08
the San Giorgio class, yep nice, only 133 meteres....but I think we're both aiming way above what we're actually going to get:rolleyes: :frown:

mutter nutter
10th January 2007, 20:17
yeah,I think its the Mekos to lose, but you never know

mutter nutter
10th January 2007, 20:18
I think the Irish naval service has the MEKO 200 MRV in their sights. I just don't know if the army thinks its large enough. We do know several Irish defence personnel looked over the Merwede MRV in Rotterdam, and the Dutch allowed Irish forces to use their Enforcer type Rotterdam in Liberia.

plus didn't the wing operate off an Italian ship in East Timor?, can't remember if that was the Garibaldi or an amphib.

hptmurphy
10th January 2007, 20:25
Hey might even stand in as a replacement for the now defunct(again) Swansea Cork Ferry

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 22:35
Dail Debates.


The Department is examining the question of the capacity of one or more of the new ships it is acquiring to get involved in humanitarian missions and it will be discussed in the course of the tender negotiations. We would like to have at least one ship adapted for humanitarian work.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUS20070403.xml&Page=1&Ex=75#N75

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 22:56
Dail Debates.



http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUS20070403.xml&Page=1&Ex=75#N75

Yes keep using that word "humanitarian"......:biggrin: what are those landing craft for?.......delivering food...humanitarian things you know:cool:

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 22:57
They are not landing craft. They are Aid distribution vessels......

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 23:35
Another type:
http://www.ata.uk.com/naval%20architects%20ship%20design/projects_multirole.gif


MULTI ROLE VESSEL FOR AN OVERSEAS NAVY




Armstrong Technology has produced a concept design for a twin screw Multi-Role Vessel to be built to commercial standards and capable of amphibious operations (including landing troops and vehicles by landing craft, helicopter or alongside) helicopter operations; disaster relief and humanitarian aid.

Possibly one of the bidders in the KIWI MRV competition, perhaps not.

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 23:41
you know if they are not wedded to this 121 metre ship length that they are talking about, the NZ MRV is 131 metres....

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 23:43
Well the Figures mentioned suggest some leeway:


The cost of the three new ships ranges from €160 million at the lower end of the scale to €190 million at the upper end.

However I don't think the Canterbury is ideal for our purposes. They have lots of protectorates in the Pacific to tend to, we have the Islands off the west coast....Theirs would be involved in the amphibous side of it more than ours would. In all the discussion on our MRV/ Blue Green whatever, never once have I heard any mention of landing craft.

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 23:44
Well the Figures mentioned suggest some leeway:
any idea what we could get for 190 million GF?

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 23:48
None. Ships like this are designed for the purpose they will be required for. Difficult to generalise when it comes to price...

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 23:52
How much did NZ pay for their MRV?, might give me a rough estimate to work out whats feasible

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 23:53
Check out the "Project Protector" thread.

DeV
15th April 2007, 10:36
Well the Figures mentioned suggest some leeway:


The cost of the three new ships ranges from €160 million at the lower end of the scale to €190 million at the upper end.


Excellent news, I know inflation is high, but the Roisin & Niamh cost over €25 million each (2002). So hopefully the NS are going to be getting much larger and more capable vessels(with more potential roles).

mutter nutter
15th April 2007, 15:50
Excellent news, I know inflation is high, but the Roisin & Niamh cost over €25 million each (2002). So hopefully the NS are going to be getting much larger and more capable vessels(with more potential roles).
The NZN paid 110million USD for their MRV, fingers and toe's crossed we can get something similar if not better for 160 million+ Euro's

ZULU
15th April 2007, 15:52
Except the budget is for three ships not one

ODIN
15th April 2007, 15:58
US$110m is rougly €82m....so that still leaves a nice margin for manover considering, and correct me if I am wrong, there is €90m set aside for the MRV, meaning there is about €35m each for the other 2 ships.

mutter nutter
15th April 2007, 16:23
Except the budget is for three ships not one
DOH! I miss read it....:redface:

Farel'
15th April 2007, 16:29
If the Navy are going to have a humanitarian role they are going to need some way of getting stuff on to the beach. There might not be any infrastructure where they go and it would be short sighted if they couldn't land aid using their own resources. They should take a leaf from the NZN and copy the craft they have on the Canterbury.

mutter nutter
15th April 2007, 16:44
US$110m is rougly €82m....so that still leaves a nice margin for manover considering, and correct me if I am wrong, there is €90m set aside for the MRV, meaning there is about €35m each for the other 2 ships.
even if the 2 smaller ships came out at 40 mill each, that would still leave 110 million on the top end for a B/G ship...I think we could get something pretty nice for that.

ODIN
15th April 2007, 18:19
Dont tell the Civil Service that...

Goldie fish
15th April 2007, 19:20
The civil service already know....

Goldie fish
6th May 2007, 16:32
Just thought I'd revisit this German design. It was mentioned much earlier.

The Type 404 Elbe Class.
http://www.marine.de/02DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26QRHKL298INFODE/$FILE/_640.jpg
In Bundesmarine service they act as support ships for Minesweeper, Submarine or Patrol Boats.

Length: 100.55m
Beam: 15.4m
Draft: 4.05m
Displacement: 3170t
Propulsion:
1 Deutz MWM SBV diesel engine, 2562kW
Speed: 15kts
Range: 2600nm
Bow thruster
Armament:
2 Fliegerfaust 2 surface-to-air missile stands (MANPADS)
2 Rheinmetall Rh202 20mm autocannon
Supplies:
max 24 standard 6.2m containers
700m³ fuel
60m³ aviation (helicopter) fuel
280m³ fresh water
160t ammunition
40t supplies
Disposal:
5t solid waste
180m³ waste water
32m³ waste oil
No hangar, but a helo deck was added for Sea king sized or larger helicopters
Complement: 40 (standard) + >38 (repair party, passengers, squadron staff)

mutter nutter
6th May 2007, 16:38
could it carry a decent amount of vehicles and have the ability to offload them easily?

Goldie fish
6th May 2007, 16:52
It has a Crane to handle the Containers. Theoretically this crane could also handle vehicles, if it was big enough(80/100t)

thebig C
7th May 2007, 12:45
Limited draught and range - looks like it's designed for the Baltic or the North Sea rather than the Atlantic. Seems to be more of a tender for flotillas of small craft rather than a landing ship. (Some of the Elbe class have had their 20mms replaced by 27mm RWSs, in line with German Navy policy.)

More info. and lots of pics. at http://www.marine-portraits.de/deutsche-marine-bundesmarine/tender-typ-404/rhein-a-513/index.html

Goldie fish
7th May 2007, 13:42
Who is looking for a landing ship? Have you read any of the thread?

thebig C
7th May 2007, 15:40
Who is looking for a landing ship? Have you read any of the thread?

Starting with post no. 1, suggesting that the Naval Service buys ex-RN LSLs (Landing Ship Logistics).... yes, I have...

And if the Naval Service is going to acquire the sort of Multi-role 'Blue/Green' ship discussed here - which seems very likely - it would be IMHO crazy not to build in the maximum flexibility, including means of embarking and disembarking. It should not be assumed that port facilities will be available at the other end, so landing craft - big enough to land a Piranha - and helicopters ought to be included in the ship's equipment.

Aidan
8th May 2007, 17:12
,
so landing craft - big enough to land a Piranha - and helicopters ought to be included in the ship's equipment

Pains me to admit it, but he may have a point on the landing craft issue. It would also have obvious uses in disaster relief situations.

And of course the vessel should have a heli deck and hanger facilities. And a lift to allow stores/equipment be brought up on deck for heli lift. Naval helicopters themselves are a different story and should probably wait until future policy is much clearer.

Obviously AB139s could be (in a situation where the state was in a position to deploy some abroad) carried on deck, and then flown to an onshore operating base once the ship was at anchor in a sheltered location.

thebig C
15th May 2007, 16:01
French BATRAL class small landing ship:

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/batral/champlai/photo01.jpg

It may not be as multi-role or as big as some other ships, but it can deliver a fully equipped company and their vehicles, by helicopter, landing craft, or straight on to the beach if necessary.

Goldie fish
15th May 2007, 21:37
And how will it deliver Humanitarian aid?

ZULU
15th May 2007, 21:41
And how will it deliver Humanitarian aid?

Define humanitarian Aid?

Goldie fish
15th May 2007, 21:47
Humanitarian aid is material or logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes, typically in response to humanitarian crises. The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity. It may therefore be distinguished from development aid, which seeks to address the underlying socioeconomic factors which may have led to a crisis or emergency.

Goldie fish
18th July 2007, 22:03
http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?t=11468

Good news finally.

Goldie fish
19th July 2007, 22:45
The recent seizure of drugs off the Co. Cork coast has received a great deal of media and public attention. The Government is fully committed to the fight against drug smuggling.

The Naval Service will continue to support the work of the Garda Siochána and the Customs & Excise who have the primary responsibility in this area. In fact, an issue of major importance to Defence in the next few years is the replacement of a number of Naval Service vessels. Planning for this has been underway for some time. Between now and 2010 three of the older vessels will reach 30 years service and will be due for replacement.

The cost of new vessels will be of the order of €150 to €190 million - in current prices. It is intended to invite tenders for the first of these new ships later in the year with the expectation of placing a contract early in 2008. This level of investment cannot be met from within the existing Defence resources, so I will be seeking the support of my government colleagues on this matter and will be bringing proposals to Government very shortly.

From the ministers speech yesterday.

mutter nutter
22nd July 2007, 16:03
Navy's new ship kitted out for disaster aid
Tools

* Print Print
* Email Email

Search Search Go

Sunday July 22 2007

DON LAVERY

A SURGERY and hospital for use on humanitarian missions like the 2004 tsunami will be able to be carried on a large new 3,500 ton ship for the Naval Service.

The new ship, the biggest ever operated by the Navy and costing €100m, will also have a helicopter landing pad and a range of other facilities.

Called a multi-role vessel, in a military role it will be able to carry around 200 troops and up to 20 armoured vehicles. Ireland was unable to send even one State transport ship or plane to help in the Asian tsunami. But with the new order for three new ships to be brought before the Cabinet by defence minister Willie O'Dea this week, Ireland is to develop a growing capacity to help in disaster zones.

The ship order includes two smaller patrol ships of just over 2,000 tons each. All three new ships can be used on fishery protection and anti-drug patrols armed with a standard Oto Melara 76mm gun as used on some other Navy ships, along with smaller cannon for protection against small boat terrorist attack when operating abroad.

The new vessels will replace the existing patrol ships, LE Emer, LE Aoife and LE Aisling, which all end their service lives by 2010.

The usefulness of having a secure perimeter and base and secure communications to Ireland was proven by the LE Roisin which went to Liberia before the start of Ireland's UN mission there.

A reconnaissance team which included Army Rangers was able to go into the lawless country by vehicle and return to the ship each day to prepare a report for Army HQ and the Government on the conditions Irish troops would face there.

They used photos of the MAKO 200 MRV in the article...clue maybe...or not:smile:

Goldie fish
22nd July 2007, 16:12
Mr Lavery has been known to read this website.

mutter nutter
22nd July 2007, 16:20
Mr Lavery has been known to read this website.
LOL, I was actually thinking that...hello Mr Lavery:wink:

Goldie fish
22nd July 2007, 16:22
Try to find a photo online of the MEKO design online that isn't sourced at this website?

GoneToTheCanner
22nd July 2007, 17:30
Hi all
A graphic of such a proposed vessel appears in one of today's papers (indo?) showing a deck carrying 20 Mowags, a Blackhawk-sized helicopter and a ramp-loading landing craft. Do you expect this vessel to have the capacity to contain a landing craft or is this even part of the specification?
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
22nd July 2007, 20:57
Is this the graphic that appears?

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1487&g2_serialNumber=1

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1502&g2_serialNumber=2

X-RayOne
22nd July 2007, 22:59
something very similar....but from an angle showing the front of the ship and same side.

Goldie fish
22nd July 2007, 23:02
something very similar....but from an angle showing the front of the ship and same side.

This one?
http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1494&g2_serialNumber=1

X-RayOne
22nd July 2007, 23:04
not that one but from same angle. it showed an apc being lowered onto a landing craft like the last one you posted.

Goldie fish
22nd July 2007, 23:07
Tried to get my hands on the indo but they were all out. Anyone willing to scan the Image?

mutter nutter
23rd July 2007, 17:10
I'll see can I dig it out.....

mutter nutter
23rd July 2007, 18:49
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7564/scannedphotos027an6.jpg

Goldie fish
26th July 2007, 19:28
Not one, but 2.
The Irish Times in its report on the approval by Cabinet of the Tender for 3 ships, also indicated that the Cabinet has approved in principle, the option of a second "Enhanced Patrol Vessel", following the construction, delivery and acceptance into service of the first.
I don't have the article in front of me, would appreciate anyone who has if they could quote the details.
The "EPV" will be able to carry up to twenty APCs, 15 to 20 Containers, and hold accomodation for up to 150 troops. It is expected to cost €90m, and will be up to 140m long, according to the Irish Times.

mutter nutter
26th July 2007, 19:33
Not one, but 2.
The Irish Times in its report on the approval by Cabinet of the Tender for 3 ships, also indicated that the Cabinet has approved in principle, the option of a second "Enhanced Patrol Vessel", following the construction, delivery and acceptance into service of the first.
I don't have the article in front of me, would appreciate anyone who has if they could quote the details.
The "EPV" will be able to carry up to twenty APCs, 15 to 20 Containers, and hold accomodation for up to 150 troops. It is expected to cost €90m, and will be up to 140m long, according to the Irish Times.
Would we need 2?...

Goldie fish
26th July 2007, 19:36
Yes.
If one is operational in one theater of operations, or in refit, and an incident or operation arises that requires the ship, say for example a Tsunami on the west african coast, you need the ship available immediately to respond.

DeV
26th July 2007, 20:04
There was supposed to be 2 of the Eithne class HPV, due to cost over runs & the shipyard closing it didn't happen.

thebig C
26th July 2007, 20:15
Yes.
If one is operational in one theater of operations, or in refit, and an incident or operation arises that requires the ship, say for example a Tsunami on the west african coast, you need the ship available immediately to respond.

In that case we probably need three....