PDA

View Full Version : New Navy Ship??



ODIN
14th May 2004, 14:27
Has anybody heard anything about this??Or is it total BS

Goldie fish
14th May 2004, 14:30
The minister has announced 2 new ships every year since he got into office.

Total number of new ships delivered since 1990 = 2.

ODIN
14th May 2004, 14:35
its just i heard bout a new one....wanted to no if anyone else had too

Goldie fish
14th May 2004, 15:16
The white paper sought a need to maintain an 8 ship fleet. It currently stands at 8,with the Older PVs due for replacement commencing 2006-2008.
As mentioned elsewhere(again there is a search function) there are strong rumours that when this replacement happens,One of the ships will be replaced with a larger type vessel,capable of supporting overseas missions. But thats a long way off. This can be treated in the same way as the COS realising the need for helis capable of transporting troops for the Air Crps. We all know they are required,but will we ever get them?
I suggest you go back the archives of this section a bit to see what has been said on the topic in the last year and a half..

John P Hannon
15th May 2004, 13:51
Does the Irish Navy have any Destroyers or Frigates or mainly patrol/helicopter carrying type ships?

Goldie fish
15th May 2004, 13:59
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/navy/

gaff85
18th May 2004, 00:24
A couple of these could be offered/requested as replacements?? The Australian Navy and The New Zealand Navy are purchasing them to replace there current patrol boats.

http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/41.pdf

Stinger
18th May 2004, 11:54
They look ideal, gives us a bit of a war fighting capability with the weapons fit as well, i especially like the helo pad

Goldie fish
18th May 2004, 16:54
Very nice indeed. Updated useful version of Eithne perhaps? Any Idea what size heli the pad will take?
Not that we have a heli to land on it...

Come-quickly
18th May 2004, 17:51
Could it sail safely in the atlantic?

Goldie fish
18th May 2004, 18:04
Well the waters of the pacific and indian ocean where this ship would Operate,contrary to popular belief,can be just as mean as the atlantic..if slightly warmer. Remember that the Roisin Class and Peacock were designed for similar waters.

Come-quickly
18th May 2004, 18:17
What about crew requirements, she has a basic crew of 84, thats before you start adding in the CIWS or VLRs that make it a warship, could the NS run one or more of these on its current establishment?

ODIN
18th May 2004, 23:00
So Goldie....what are the chances of one or two of those ships??
Should we start to petition the minister??

ex pat 007
18th May 2004, 23:19
if they end up getting a few blackhawks do you think they may go with a seahawk variant or two?

ForkTailedDevil
19th May 2004, 00:50
Which of the IN ships are going to be up for retirement in the near future that would require relacement with a ship of this class?

John P Hannon
19th May 2004, 00:56
The Australian Navy bought Patrol Boats from Britain but the problem was that they were not designed for warm water. The problem was fixed but I'm not sure what they did. The Asian fishing boats can often outrun them...not much use at all.

hptmurphy
19th May 2004, 20:36
The L.E Emer is the next earmarked for retorement having been commissioned in 1977.....but there is no talk of a replacement yet.

DeV
21st May 2004, 13:21
There was to be 2 Eithne class HPVs built, thats why 2 navalised Dauphins were purchased, but Velome (not sure of spelling), delayed the building of Eithne to try and stay afloat (financially) & then went under. Excuse the puns.

{MOD:Its Verolme(pronounced veh-rome-ee if you are a local}

Goldie fish
21st May 2004, 17:52
Originally posted by gaff85
A couple of these could be offered/requested as replacements?? The Australian Navy and The New Zealand Navy are purchasing them to replace there current patrol boats.

http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/41.pdf
While the Kiwis are selecting this type for patrol duties,they are not replacing any Ships in NZ service.
The Aussies are replacing their british Built patrol boats(Fremantle Class) with the Armidale (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1767) Class.
The Kiwis are also selecting a Multi role vessel to replace their aged Broad Beamed Leander class, Canterbury(Rugby shirt anyone?)

Farel'
21st May 2004, 22:11
Dont know if the Tenix 80m OPV would be of any use to us,as it is designed to operate in Sea State 5 conditions. It also has the Bathtub bow that gave Deirdre the nickname "Submarine".
However she is similar to the Original designs for the P30 class,before it became the over engineered white elephant that Eithne is today.
Not surprising as the People who designed it and ran the Tank Tests,Damen of Holland,were the Parent company of Verolme,the people who built Eithne.

The NZ Project Protector has no decisions made yet,apart from the fact that the Government plan to spend NZ$500m on procuring a Large Multi role vessel, Up to 3 OPVs and 4 or 5 Inshore Patrol Vessels.
The VT EEZ Protection vessel,on which design the RN River class is based, is also considered a contender for the OPV contract,built locally of course.
I dont know if any decisions have been made yet.

hptmurphy
22nd May 2004, 00:27
Sea state 5 ! hah! we often had worse before leaving roches point. Deirdre was a concept vessel as was eithne . the lessons learned from the FP20 class were applied to the P21 class and they have given unrivalled service. had the concept of the P31 class been continued I'm sure that they would have become world leaders. the proof of this is the amount of modifications and upgrades that the eithne has under gone to give her still unrivalled capability within the service. She will be twenty years old next year and has performed admirably. I gave a couple of years of my life aboard her and still would say that as patrol vessel she is still one of the best things that the DF every procurred,

Yes she had her failings ...but these ahve been negated by the years of operationall service she has given!

Goldie fish
22nd May 2004, 00:41
Do you count the 20 years from the date of Launch, or the date of comissioning? The date the keel was laid was some time previous to both..

DeV
26th May 2004, 20:33
Should Eithne, eventually be replaced by another HPV or by a OPV?

Goldie fish
27th May 2004, 00:23
That question can only be answered with another. Do the Dept of defence intend having Helis capable of landing aboard ship?
The current worldwide trend seems to be towards patrol vessels that are at least capable of landing a heli,the only variable is do you want to land an alouette,or a chinook?(Theoretically,of course).
To me it would seem sensible that all Naval vessels,which have SAR as a secondary tasking(if not in effect a primary one,after Fisheries protection) should be able to operate suitably equipped SAR helis,when operating at the extreme ranges of the Atlantic. In many cases in the past,SAR helis,at the limit of their range,have piggy backed on the decks of Cargo ships and tankers on the way to or from a rescue,in an attempt to prolong their loiter time. Having an SAR asset to land on while en route seems like a logical step.
Most of the users here do not remember the Air India disaster,when our Air Corps had to look on while the canadians,british and US aircraft searched the waters off our coast for debris,and bodies,once it was realised there were no survivors. Those that were capable of refuelling mid air,did so,while the rest were forced to stage at Shannon,Cork or Castletownbere.
In the event of a similar tragic event,having a naval vessel with a useful helipad could only be considered an advantage,even if it saw little use for the majority of its service. The requirment for a hangar aboard ship however can not be easily justified.

coffee
27th May 2004, 04:11
how much do these tenix cost personaly i would like 4 of those vessles but lets think big i like the ship in this months an cosantoir hmls rotterdam
1 extensive hospital
can carry marine battlion
six helis (wud like 2 harrier 2 lynx)
vehicles
4large 6small LCU
i know this will never happen so dont give me the usual earfull

John P Hannon
27th May 2004, 09:19
There are 'clip on' packs of ship to ship missiles for the 'Fremantle' Class patrol boat. I don't think Australia ever looked at Harpoons for the Patrol boats but.

ForkTailedDevil
27th May 2004, 16:59
I don't think anti ship missles like the Harpoon are needed as a fixed weapon on INS vessels (do I say ships or boats or stick with vessels?).A heavier fit of guns probably best, 57mm main gun(s?), 20mm secondary guns, anti aircraft CIWS, .50/GPMG.Missle fit on a possible helicopter?.Spanish Navy Seahawks use Hellfires.Would do the job against smaller vessels that the INS is most likely to have to deal with in hostile situations.

John P Hannon
27th May 2004, 17:15
It is just an option. I believe Helicopters are a must. A 57mm gun is fantastic and a heavier ship than a patrol type craft a 76mm gun with its support 20mm and 25mm gun with .50cals...Fifties are still a magnificent weapon.
I believe we should have a "Coast Watch" type service in Australia with customs travelling on board the ships/boats.

DeV
27th May 2004, 18:22
There is a Danish class of patrol vessel, can't remember the name of it, but it is modular. They add / take away equipment depending on the role, although it is under 1000 tons displacement. It can be roled as a patrol vessel, minehunter, or attack craft.

John P Hannon
27th May 2004, 18:28
Brian, I don't know the role of the Irish Navy but that sounds as if it would be a good vessel. I don't know what size the vessels that they have now are but a WW2 destroyer was around 2,000 tons.a That type of ship had six 4.7in guns plus anti aircraft and anti submarine capabilities. A present day destroyer is much larger I know so all navy buffs give me a break.

DeV
27th May 2004, 21:40
It is the Danish Flyvefisken class patrol vessel, I was talking about. Vessel is adaptable between combat, minelayer, mine-counter measuresand surveillance.

Built: 14
Speed: 30 kts
Crew: 29
Length: 54 m
Beam: 9 m
Draught: 2.5 m
Displacement: 300 tonnes
Year Built: 1985-1995
Armament: 76mm, 20mm, SAM, SSM, torpedoes, mines


http://forsvaret.dk/FKO/eng/Facts+and+Figures/Material/Navy/


Something along these lines would be excellent.

Goldie fish
28th May 2004, 06:31
If its over 50m in length its a ship..otherwise its a boat.

I personally would love if we had something like the Rotterdam. However to fill it would require closing another barracks

Goldie fish
28th May 2004, 09:06
The MEKO design,as used by the Aussies and NZ Navy is of modular design. Down there they call it ANZAC.
Comes in varying sizes,but the modular fit of engines,weapons and sensors is common to all.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/images/outline.jpg

Lordinajamjar
28th May 2004, 13:32
xxxxx

Goldie fish
28th May 2004, 18:54
Check out the earlier posts in this section where we mentioned this before.

DeV
29th May 2004, 20:53
Obviously, the Flyvefisken class is designed for use in the coastal waters of Denmark, and not 200nm into the Atlantic, but it shows us something.

Any new NS vessels could have been designed to be adaptable, the NS has roles of anti-shipping, minelayer, mine clearance, patrolling and surveillance, if it could be done on such a small vessel (boat), why not on a vessel of the Niamh's size.

By comparsion, the minesweepers were less than 43 metres long, where 360 tons standard displacement and 425 tons fully loaded. They were capable of 15 knots, had a crew of 30. But yet only carried a single 40mm gun and 2 * 20mm guns.

Goldie fish
29th May 2004, 21:15
They were also really really old..cramped,and unstable. Chronic seasickness was not uncommon among crew.

John P Hannon
30th May 2004, 06:09
The ANZAC Class Frigates sail the oceans of the world, recently seeing action in the Iraq debacle. I believe they are fitted with a rapid firing 5 inch gun.

hptmurphy
30th May 2004, 06:23
eh ...no if you were seasick on a sweeper you usually got moved off . Sweepers were unbelieveably popular with their crews as during the winter time they came home most nights . During the early 80s they conducted most of the salmon wars so life was interrsting to say the least.
To hanno..well before the meko 200 class figate ...built as Anzac... ton class mine sweeprs sailed the seven seas ...seeing more action than a royal marine in a hong kong whore house!

Even the RAN use the ton class sweeper as did 30 other nations around the globe! :mad:

John P Hannon
30th May 2004, 06:43
I know the class of sweeper, what I was refering to that the class is NOT just coastal but can handle the oceans as well.
Hanno

Goldie fish
31st May 2004, 01:44
I'm a bit confused here...JPH,are you referring the Charles F Adams class used in the past by the RAN? They use an italian design of minesweeper at the moment,but i dont know how successful they have been..

John P Hannon
31st May 2004, 05:58
The Charles F Adams was a great destroyer with two 5 inch rapid fire guns. This class of destroyer could out gun a WW2 Cruiser. This Frigate is to replace the ' BRISBANE' 'HOBART" and 'PERTH'. Those ships had a speed of near 40 knots and the ANZAC CLASS is about 27 knots...
What I was saying is that some of our Frigates saw action in/off Iraq.

ForkTailedDevil
3rd June 2004, 17:28
Does anybody think these sips need a heavier armament than guns? SAM systems seem to be wanted by some.What about anti ship missles? I'm sure they are excessive for INS use but does anybody see a potential need?

DeV
3rd June 2004, 18:07
Well in that case turn the NS into a unarmed coast guard?

This is what I believe any new NS vessels need armament wise:

1 x 76mm
min 2 x MMG / HMG
Close in SAM system (eg Seawolf vertical launch with 16 SAMs + reloads)
Medium Range SSM system (eg Harpoon/Exocet with 4/8 SSMs + reloads?)
4 x Torpedoes / other anti-sub system
Able to carry limited amount of mines

These system would require a miminal additional weight, crew & length of vessel

Come-quickly
3rd June 2004, 18:27
Or you could change the fleet to a mixture of large multi-purpose ships and smaller than the current PVs with high levels of automation with built in redundancies and a fit of a main gun supplememnted by automated small calibre cannons and twin packed HMGs.
For peace time missions that kind of fit would give ample protection for escorts and recce missions, the crew savings would allow the NS to operate 2 or three larger vessels.
In terms of warfighting the most important thing is survivability and adaptability so a ship basically needs to be able to support the likes of VLS systems,(the most obvious answer again being a modular design) a hull design that allows for the ship to survive external penetrations and internal fires etc and of course sufficient safe accomodation for crew, including a provision for the crew any future uparmaments might require.

Cannon and the 3" are capable of dealing with a wide range of common threats including aircraft, the main reason for missiles would be BVR missiles and fast jets which are pretty hard to find a defence against on a small vessel anyway.
Leaving aside the obvious if the NS were to want a fairly comprehensive defense against BVRs and fast jets its most common and best line of defence would be the CN-235MPAs Identifying threats and tasking more capable assets to attack them.
At this point in the game where even a peace enforcement role for the NS seems a bit fairy tale; a pair of well armed gunship escorting something in the SF3000 or Rotterdam class equipped with an armed helicopter and receiving up to date info from a CN-235 or equivalent would be a pretty secure base for an army entry force into a destabilised area like pre-truce Liberia.
Even in an Iraq style scenario such a force would have a role as part of a well equipped fleet.

Goldie fish
4th June 2004, 18:06
I think any future vessel,irrespective of size should at least have the potential to have its armament increased,should deploument to a more hostile environment be considered.
For example,when Niamh went to China,she transitted through areas that are notorious for Piracy,and we can assume that all her deck armament(1x76mm,2x12.7mm HMG, 4x7.62mm GPMG) was closed up. There is of course probably no requirment for VLS when engaged in Fisheries protection,but it would provide a greater level of weaponry if it were decided that the NS would take part in some operation with other EU warships in a hostile environment,with the ability to load anti aircraft,anti ship and asroc in launch cells.
However of greater importance is the ability to operate with other Naval forces relating to Replenishment and refuelling at sea,the former being practiced during NS exercises,but the latter not being possible due to the ships design,and of course the absence of any Irish naval auxiliaries capable of refuelling ships at sea.

This entire area is something we are uniquely deficient in,considering our location on the edge of the atlantic,compensated for by the relatively long ranges of our Vessels.

The other area is of course Communications. We have a relatively sophisticated Comms fit aboard the current fleet but I dont know how this would compare to other Naval fits,as opposed to a fit designed around being on scene co-ordinator of an SAR operation.Inter operability is the key.

Come-quickly
4th June 2004, 18:59
HPT informs me that the crew savings idea wouldnt really work as their has to be surge capacity for damage control and the weapons operators make up a tiny proportion of the crew anyway.

Bit of trivia, Meko is japanese for vagina :confused:

Goldie fish
4th June 2004, 19:04
Come quickly is english for premature ejaculation! Keep it relevent please!

hptmurphy
8th June 2004, 19:57
This thread is getting beyond the realms of fanatasy.

The EU pay for the vessels on the grounds they are used for FP ...protecting Eurozones assets.

Nobody will pay for bona fide warships until we become part of a credible military alliance.

the governmet will never fund the production of single purpose combat capable ships ..as we have no natural enemies.

All this talk of force projection is mindless as in the history of the sate we have never had an internal mandate to deploy military force.
All our actions have been controlled by the UN and it is they who underwrite the deployment of troops.

The idea of a rotterdam type vessel is nice but what would we do with it. Put entire brigades in it and bring them for spins a round the coast?

Who would crew it seeing as there is a major problem with even crewing the current vessels to a safe standard!

The sooner the naval service is official recognised as being a fishery protection service and a coastguard and effectively removed as an arm of the DF the better as it will then be able to operate more civilian type vessels. :mad:

DeV
8th June 2004, 20:20
EU funded "military" projects have to spend a specfic percentage of there time on EU "operations", ie CASA has to spend xx% on fishery protection. The EU will not fund certain things, eg 76mm gun on LE Niamh, therefore the armament fit is paid for by Irish government. The EU would still provide funding for such a vessel providing it still spent xx% on fishery protection.

hptmurphy
8th June 2004, 23:37
deploy overseas.......you hardly needed a Navy to fight a civil war...yes I know about the landings in cork!

Goldie fish
9th June 2004, 12:00
Originally posted by hptmurphy
This thread is getting beyond the realms of fanatasy.

The EU pay for the vessels on the grounds they are used for FP ...protecting Eurozones assets.
And what if the EU were willing to pay for proper Naval vessels to act as part of an EU Naval force,which is already in the practical stages of creation?





The idea of a rotterdam type vessel is nice but what would we do with it. Put entire brigades in it and bring them for spins a round the coast?
The Rotterdam type is an extreme example,but there is no practical reason why a larger multi role vessel,somewhere closer along the lines of HMS Endurance(though not icebreaker naturally)could be considered for the rare occasions when the extra space would be an advantage. Modern technology allows for smaller crews than required on older Naval vessels,and you have to admit that many positions on board ship are surplus to day to day requirments. (eng Off,PO RRT for example).Greater automation of engineering spaces,as well as reduced crewing for routine tasks is a solution which was seriously being considered. Did you know for example the only reason all NS ships have at least 5 officers is to Justify the existence of the wardroom? any less and mil regs will not sanction it..
The danish Thetis class frigate carries a crew not much larger than Eithnes,but has the capability to increase capability in hostile environments



The sooner the naval service is official recognised as being a fishery protection service and a coastguard and effectively removed as an arm of the DF the better as it will then be able to operate more civilian type vessels. :mad:

In the early 90s,when the white paper was just a distant fear,there was a strong rumour in the base that all grey paint was being collected from stores and replaced with white and red....:D

Its true though,the only thing that makes the INS Naval is the colour of the ships. In every other way they are a coastguard force,and incapable of carrying out much of the coastguard tasks. The main role has been fisheries protection,almost since its creation,but the SFPA,a non military organisation still has a better record when it comes to detentions,even though they only have 4 small protection vessels,and one search aircraft.
Is it time,that the Naval service,like the air corps,forget about carrying out non military tasks and instead concentrate on the primary military ones,that of defending the state from internal and external agression?
Or would forgetting about fisheries protection remove the only justification for the existence of the service?

ForkTailedDevil
9th June 2004, 20:29
defending the state from internal and external agression?Or would forgetting about fisheries protection remove the only justification for the existence of the service?

Is fisheries protection not the defence of the states resources? i.e illegal exploitation of an economic assets within the territory by internal and external persons.
That probably sounds like the need for a legal definition.


why a larger multi role vessel,somewhere closer along the lines of HMS Endurance

A HMS Endurance sized vessel but without the strenghtened bow? Well that sounds sensible.Room for two Lynx, scientific research facilities, 122 man crew and 14 Marines normally, 2x20mm cannon.It was launched in 1956 but it still works.That would please the bean counters.

Goldie fish
9th June 2004, 23:12
You are thinking of the wrong Endurance...Built in 1990 as Polar Circle. But the multi role ability of the ship is what matters,its ability to assist in amphibious operations. As mentioned elsewhere,this was already on the drawing board,literally in the early 80s,but came to nothing,following the cancellation of the second Eithne type.

hptmurphy
10th June 2004, 03:37
The naval vessels carry a surplus of officers for watchkeeping ...both engine room a nd bridge. the RRTs are require as are EAsand ERAs....who fixes the video player when its broken.

The only surplus bods on ships are stwards and they have been drastically reduced in recent years.

Ifeel the castle type vessels are quite good being able to land a helo and carrya company of marines....The concept of operating a helo from small ships in the atlantic is gone...finito dead and buried. IF the case arise when the EU develops a naval arm then we are in trouble big time....we can buyall the ships but manning them is going to be aproblem .Historically the NS has always had severe man power problems...this type of lifestyle is harsh and not for the faint hearted and as a result the turn over of bodies is quite high.

When you consider that it takes a minimum of 2 years to qualify as a n able rate....you can see the problems this poses!

morpheus
10th June 2004, 15:16
Just found this little jem of info on Franks board....



Watch this space Silver, with talk about a Naval supply ship about to be ordered plus the new "Large" Naval ship that will replace Emer within three years, to help support Irish troops in the ERF plus UN missions. There seems to be a shift towards Army/Aircorp/Naval joint ops for the future.


:rolleyes:

Any of this grounded in reality?

Do you reckon the Gov would be looking at two seperate ships, or would they look at 1 larger transport vessel able to carry 2 or more helis and a detachment of troops maybe?

paul g
10th June 2004, 20:25
New Zealnd have ordered a new multi-role ship under project protector, along with 3 Offshore patrol vessels, its basically an 8,000 tonne vessel able to support army/disaster relief operations whilst also being able to undertake long range EEZ patrol missions, perhaps something like that might be on the cards.

barry sheehan
10th June 2004, 21:27
have it on good authority that because the government is sick of having to chaarter gargo ships each time we go on a new mission overseas(liberia is a perfect example)that they want the naval service to have its own troopship capable of carrying a full pso battalion c/w ALL its equipment(mowags,weapons,ammo,tentage comms etc) and be capable
of carrying a MINIMUM of two troop carryin helis.
as most overseas missions will in future be of limited duration as opposed to 23 years in the leb where we used alot of UN gear,i would say this is likely to happen.

morpheus
10th June 2004, 21:41
have it on good authority


ahh... pull the other one....

weve been hearing this for ages along with other equipment were supposed to be purchasing... whos good authority, i wont beleve it till i see her tied up in Haulbowline.




they want the naval service to have its own troopship capable of carrying a full pso battalion c/w ALL its equipment(mowags,weapons,ammo,tentage comms etc) and be capable
of carrying a MINIMUM of two troop carryin helis.


I doubt seriously that a navy with a shortage of manpower and funding like ours, could afford something like this....

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/images/rott3.jpg

Although i for one would love to see it.

Your talking about something like the HR MS Rotterdam that the dutch deployed to Liberia?

Ok its a tad large with capacity for FOUR EH101 choppers, but it carries a Battalion of fully equipped troops, has 123 crew, 170 APCs and landing craft. Now Landing craft... I know you'll say we probably wont need these, but the fact is that the Army trained on and borrowed them from the dutch in Liberia carrying out our first ever - (barring some FCA members in saving Private Ryan :D) - official marine landing has me thinking that there was another reason besides the obvious one.

Heres some more info on her....

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/index.html#rotterdam1

gaff85
10th June 2004, 21:51
This would be a good addition to the fleet, however the current helicopter tender that is out has not mention that the helicoptes have to have an ability to operate from naval ships. This would probably mean another tender for this speific equipment.

DeV
10th June 2004, 22:18
Marine landings were carried out by the ARW in East Timor & are carried out routinely during "attacks" on Fort Davis, sometimes with NGS (Naval Gunfire Support) from NS vessels.

ForkTailedDevil
11th June 2004, 03:41
To justify something like the Rotterdam with its dock etc is pretty hard especially since there is no Marine Corp or specialised army unit to land from it yet even if some experience was gained from the Dutch.I know someone is going to say the ARW can do it, and of course they can, but there are only 100 of them and every time someone suggests a specialised role on these boards its a "let the ARW do it" answer.They are going to be a very stressed out bunch of individuals if they have to travel worldwide to perform every specialised assault role.

How about a multirole vessel something like this to support an amphibious operation as opposed to carrying one out-

-Roll on/roll off ferry configuration to land troops and equipment into a safe port
-large multi MLH helicopter deck & hangar
-large hospital facilities
-limited self defence armament eg CIWS and guns for engaging aircraft and small surface vessels
-and most importantly in my plan a command and communications facility rivalling that of anything on land.

Something that could run an entire landing operation for an EU amphibious assault from landing craft to aircraft, or a disaster relief operation.It would be able to transport and support, just not have the ability to use landing craft to put them on the beach but land them by helicopter or put them into port with their equipment.

Of course I'm just a landlubber so I don't know if you can fit all that into and onto the one hull but I'd assme it would be less complicated than a Rotterdam type ship yet more flexible than a rented ferry.

Goldie fish
11th June 2004, 08:57
Something along the lines of the Truck ferries commonly seen on the irish sea is whats in mind here. We are not looking for an assault ship,as rotterdam could be considered,but something capable of carrying troops and equipment to a relatively secure port for disembarkation(nobody is doing beach assaults here.) The British Forces recently took delivery of something like this in the shape of Hurst Point.

DeV
11th June 2004, 15:37
While I'd obviously love to see something along the lines of the Rotterdam, can't see it happening. I could see the DOD leasing/purchasing something similar to a car carrier or container vessel. Proberly something along the lines of the vessel used to transport the MOWAGs & other vehicles to Liberia.

morpheus
11th June 2004, 15:55
What ship transported them from ireland? wasnt it a dutch ship?

FTD? the Rotterdam is a marine assault ship to a certain degree but it is designed multi role with the ability to transport a battalion and its vehicles.

Maybe its not Roll on roll off, but Im sure the ship must be loaded using a ramp for the vehicles!!

I seriously doubt that a crane is used to place all those APCs on board!! It would see plenty of service with the UN deploying with our contingent say in Liberia and then assisting other countrys units in the theatre, the way we used the dutch one over there ( im not sure if the dutch vessel there is the Rotterdam, but i believe its one of that class)...

its a little ambitious and we would need to justify its purchase. I just cant see the taxplayer being convinced especially if the green party and other lefty socio-libs get their teeth into it and spout their usual complete crap about us becoming a cog in the evil empire etc. Heh, they would probably class the Rotterdam as an Aircraft Carrier.

However, a simple look at the money blown on LUAS and the E-voting scandal this would have paid for a few Rotterdams...
hmmm...
or a new hospital or two which we could then badly run and overcrowd. :D

DeV
11th June 2004, 17:21
I think it was a contracted vessel, I have a photo of it unloading will try & post it over the weekend.

In fairness, such a vessel will be used once in a blue moon. Maximum of 8 trips per year to an AO (eg Liberia/Kosovo), for equipment deployment/rotation.
First continent of troops could be deployed this way but best way to rotate troops is via the current system of chalks, troops are stuck at sea for weeks & some level of local experience is maintained.

We would have to find other roles for it, such as training for National Maritime College, pollution control / monitoring, patrolling, etc

Goldie fish
11th June 2004, 22:44
They used a Civvy Car carrier to get to Eritrea.

Goldie fish
12th June 2004, 04:18
Originally posted by morpheus
Just found this little jem of info on Franks board....



:rolleyes:

Any of this grounded in reality?

Do you reckon the Gov would be looking at two seperate ships, or would they look at 1 larger transport vessel able to carry 2 or more helis and a detachment of troops maybe?


posted today on franks Board...

Unfortuantly the downside to the same story was lack of manpower to crew the ship.
Pilatus, I read about it on IOM..

It must be true then!:rolleyes:

DeV
12th June 2004, 17:22
Can't find the photo now, but think it was actually Eritera.

DeV
12th June 2004, 17:26
Just to show how versatile the current NS vessels are: the Deirdre/Emer class vessels used to bring containers of stores to Lebaon.

The LE Niamh was used to carry 4 of the new FFRs with trailers on a recce mission to Liberia. Although I would like to see a photo of them on board.

Goldie fish
13th June 2004, 02:13
This is the kind of support ship I am talking about. This one travels with the german small boat flotillas,carrying all required stores and parts,as well as a crane capable of lifting the 20 foot standard container box to the quayside.
It is also fitted with a massive helipad.

Bravo20
14th June 2004, 17:21
There is a lot of talk about the NS getting a supply ship, but realistically how much use would such a ship get. Look at our current deployment, is there sufficient work for this ship to earn its keep or is it cheaper to hire the assets as required. Methinks hiring as required is the better option.

DeV
14th June 2004, 18:50
I agree with Bravo20 in one way but then again, there has been an offical requirement since circa 1960. LE Seanta (spelling?) was an attempt to solve this.

But the likes of the Amsterdam, is way too be for our requirements, when we look at how often they will be used in role.

Goldie fish
15th June 2004, 00:23
Setanta(after the cork hurling hero..)

A small enough supply ship(the German one pictured above is not much larger than eithne)would be capable of carrying out routine patrols when not engaged in the supply ship role. Setanta done this for a while,but was hindered by her age and the fact her engines ran on heavy fuel oil,and steam boilers,not diesel.
Setanta Played a large part in the search and salvage of the Betelgeuse in Bantry Bay,back in Jan 79.

DeV
15th June 2004, 03:47
Just illustrating the fact that they any supply vessel must be multi-roled.

Back to the matter of patrol vessels, how about something along the lines of the "Niels Juel" class Danish patrol vessel.

Built: 1978/1980
Quantity: 3 (in Danish service)
Displacement: 1320 tons
Length: 84 m
Complement: 91 (18 officers + 73 other ranks)
Proplusion: 2 propellers powered by gas turbine & diesel, bowthruster
Range: 4000 nm @ 18 knots
Speed: 28.6 knots

Current Armament:
1 x 76mm gun
2 x 20mm gun
8 x Harpoon SSM
1 x Sea Sparrow VLS SAM (6 x lauchers)
2 x Stinger SAM
24 x Sea Gnat / SBROC Mk36 (think this is a decoy launcher)
1 x Depth Charge Laucher

Goldie fish
15th June 2004, 03:57
Niels Juel is as much a patrol vessel as eithne is a Frigate.
Jane's lists her as a frigate.
her range is actually 2500nm @18 kts

DeV
15th June 2004, 15:10
Jane's lists Eithne as a corvette, but it is still about the same size as eithne

morpheus
15th June 2004, 15:39
Jane's lists Eithne as a corvette


From Dictionary.com

Frigate:
A warship, usually of 4,000 to 9,000 displacement tons, that is larger than a destroyer and smaller than a cruiser, used primarily for escort duty

The Niels Juel is something like 1300 tons displacement, but the term Frigate seems to refer to a much larger ship? Could Janes be wrong? Its probably the dictionary thats wrong!

Corvette:
A fast, lightly armed warship, smaller than a destroyer, often armed for antisubmarine operations.

Corvette sounds more like both ships...

If you check here

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/NielsJuel_ClassCorvette(1980-).htm

The dutch even refer to her as a Corvette class vessel. They also have the range down to 4000 @ 18kts.

ias
15th June 2004, 16:55
Was anyone else of the understanding that, in general, a Destroyer was larger than a Frigate rather than the other way round?

IAS

ForkTailedDevil
15th June 2004, 17:04
Yeah, you weren't the only person.I thought it was Corvette then Frigate then Destroyer in the size scale.

Bud Fox
15th June 2004, 19:27
What was the role of LE Ferdia? She was about the same time as LE Setanta.
If we had 2 auxillary ships back then, I am sure that the requirement still exists

hptmurphy
15th June 2004, 20:22
Ferdia was the stern trawler ..Helen basse on lease until emer was delivered ...armed with a single20mm gun... The Naval service couldn't wait to get rid of her!

Setanta was originally the Irish lights tender Isolda and was also well knackered before the NS got her. Yes she was on the lines of what was required but was far too slow and expensive to run.

The Deirdre and Emer classes were two seperate types of vessel.
The Deirdre never did Uni Fil supply as her after deck was smaller than the Emer class( she was shorter ) and more cluttered as a result.

The correct defiition of Eithne is HPV heli patrol vessel..... she is neither corvette or frigate but somewhere in between. technically she is not a warship as she is not capable of defending herself. her weapons are purely for fishery protection.

the helicopter made her some what of an an anomally because it is designed for a/s work and it was assumed incorrectly that this would automatically be its primary role. the last classifiable warships the NS used were the sweepers and before that the corvettes. the current fleet are all built to LLoyds civilian standard for insurance purposes.
Its cheaper to insure a civilian spec FP vessel than a warship.it also cuts down on the building costs as there are no lateral reinforced bulkheads aboard.

ias
15th June 2004, 20:41
HPT are the Peacocks built to Civilian Standards also?

IAS

Bud Fox
15th June 2004, 20:47
Is it acceptable to use ships built to a civilian standard to preform military tasks? or is this the best that we can hope for.

hptmurphy
16th June 2004, 01:07
the peacocks are a bit of a mystery. Whiles registered as warships they have only operated in the far east prior to operating here and do not have many systems that are standard on Royal Navy warships....fallout flushing gear.... advanced damage cotrol ...NBC systems.

They are classified as patrol vessels . they were built by swan hunter in the UK to a specific design.....to be hurricane proof which they never were. Their poularity in Hong Kong was due to their speed. Their accamadation is severe to say the least and their armament by design is very limited.. so they are not true warship. the Philipinos seem to like them as they bought the remander of the class...another missed oppertunity for the INS. another coup for Charlie haughey as he managed to aquire two three year old ships for less than half the cost of building and fitting out one! Nobody but he could have got away with it...maybe we should get him to go and arrange another few deals.

actually if you balance it against the money he alledgedly robbed the state of it nearly balances out! :D :D

Goldie fish
16th June 2004, 02:21
The most memorable the NS crews of the time can say about ferdia was that she stank of fish.
The difference Between Corvette,Frigate,destroyer and patrol ship is not always clear cut,but you could summarise it by weaponry.
Destroyers usually have the role of defendng a convoy from air and surface attack,with an asw capability. They usually also have a surface strike role,such as cruise missiles etc.
Frigates usually concentrate on the ASW role,with an anti aircraft capability as self defence only.
Corvettes as a designation usually refers to a smaller version of the above 2,but the differences are more cloudy in recent times. In fact there is no international agreement between designations. However the weaponry can tell a lot,and Eithne,without either missiles or torpedos or any form of asw or anti surface defence apart from relatively light guns,would put her safely in the Patrol vessel class. As the 365F was originally considered an ASW heli,as murf says,she would have been incorrectly classed as a corvette,but if you look at all the other ships in that type in any Janes publication,you will realise the mistake,as she is the odball in the category,having neither missile,torpedo or any form of self defence countermeasures such as chaff,decoys or ciws.

In any case the Niels Juels class is older than eithne,and judging by some of the photos,I worry about her seakeeping qualities.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Skibene/Olfert%20Fischer_planer.jpg
Having that much hull out of the water is not exactly healthy,and the seas dont appear that heavy...She is probably fine for the sheltered waters of the eastern danish coast,but compare her to the Other Danish type,Thetis,which is more suitable for exposed atlantic,and north sea weather.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Skibene/Thetis(1991)_SVN4.jpg


Every so often somebody comes in here with some ship they have picked at random suggesting it would be ideal for our naval service..What criteria do you use for such a selection? Do you base it on a current requirement,a reasonable cost,or the fact it has lots of guns and looks pretty?

yellowjacket
16th June 2004, 02:36
http://www2.mimer.no/~ivaknu01/shipimg/iowa.jpg

Just the thing for wayward trawlers.
:D :D

DeV
16th June 2004, 15:58
I just going by size, displacement, armament fit. I suggested two different classes of vessels, both Danish, as it happens.

But I'm suggesting vessels "ALONG THIS LINES" not exactly!

John P Hannon
13th August 2004, 06:05
Australia will be replaceing our 'FREMANTLE' class patrol boats soon, these have worked well here and in cyclonic conditions as well to rescue people who should not have been at sea with the weather warnings.
Their top speed is a bit disappointing but they can carry 2 main motors whereas we have 1 main motor and one for cruising. Their armament is a 40/60 Bofor but was designed to have a 57mm Bofor, a far better gun. They also carry a 81mm mortar and .50 calibre machine guns. This class can have clip on ship to ship missile launchers as well.
In the past they have captured many illegal fishing boats especially when working with aircraft, however, some of these boats have been able to outrun them. John,
I did like what I read about some of the smaller boats here.
I believe that the Irish Navy needs something that has great seaworthiness in an Atlantic storm with good range and some kind of firepower. I don't think they need a Frigate or bigger unless they need to sail the Atlantic to the US or Canada.
Having room on board their patrol boats for Customs and a boarding party is essential in the war against drugs etc.

Goldie fish
13th August 2004, 06:11
The new aussie boats are mentioned here

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1767&highlight=armidale

Goldie fish
31st August 2004, 12:17
Last sundays SBP mentioned(as described in the politics section) that Minister smith is in favour of using SSIA funds to purchase new equipment for the Defence forces.
Included in his shopping list was Armed fishery Protection ships,High speed drug trafficer interception boats and SAR helis as priorities. It seems he has recognised the only way to tackle the smuggling of drugs into the country is to invest in more vessels to intercept incoming craft suspected of smuggling drugs. At present,according to the article,the fight against drugs is being hindered by the lack of funds in this area.
I wonder if he will be about to follow through this plan...

Emer's replacment date is approaching fast.

Goldie fish
11th September 2004, 02:28
Originally posted by Goldie fish
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg-T6BwY1knc6sg0aewFBADppk.asp

10/09/04
Smith seeks SSIA cash to boost navy

By Mary Dundon



These bonds would first be used to finance the purchase of a €30m naval vessel due to come on stream in 2007, more modern air-sea rescue helicopters and high-speed drug interception boats.

John P Hannon
18th September 2004, 06:45
Watched a programme about 'Stealth' Patrol boats...very interesting. Very costly.
I believe that when a country has all the money it needs is when you have a major trafficing problem. I would love to be able to stop drugs coming into my country but too many police and officials would lose too much money.

Farel'
22nd September 2004, 10:57
I think we should be paying attention to the way the RNZN is going. They have similar requirements to us and have put a lot of effort into renewing their fleet in an atmosphere where their Larger military neighbours are expected to defend them in time of crisis(Australia,France).

They managed to rustle up $500m for a new fleet of 7 ships...check out Warships IFR for more details.

Goldie fish
20th November 2004, 10:17
The Company that Built the P50 Class,Appledore,was recently aquired by the People who run all the RN Dockyards, DML.
They Have come up with a number of designs to replace the Castle class Falkland Island Patrol ship,which would be Leased to the RN and maintained for them for an intiial 5 years...watch this space.

John P Hannon
2nd October 2005, 16:15
The Frigate was always the second largest ship on the line and did not usually engage in action as in Trafalgar. I always thought that now a frigate was smaller and had different duties to a destroyer.

John P Hannon
5th November 2005, 08:13
I believe Ireland needs fast ships with good sea capabilities, some with helicopters for rescue and customs type operations.
Firepower may not be of a large calibre but fast light weapons would be the better option. As in 25mm and 30mm rapid fire guns.
57mm is brilliant but that might be the biggest weapon apart from missiles.

Goldie fish
5th November 2005, 22:55
The new Italian Class of OPV are quite popular in Naval circles, and the Newest, Comandant Foscari(sounds like a dublin Chipper) was demonstrated at the recent DSEi.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/commandante/images/Commandante_4.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/commandante/images/Commandante_8.jpg

John P Hannon
6th November 2005, 01:24
What calibre gun is that? The ship looks fast, how well does it go in the North Atlantic?

Goldie fish
6th November 2005, 01:55
76mm OTO Melara Super rapid Dual Purpose of course. It made it to the UK in October, so I imagine it can take a slight wave or two.

http://www.fincantieri.com/article.asp?m=41|6|116&id=425

Lordinajamjar
6th November 2005, 02:10
Something hauntingly familiar about them don't you think?

LÉ Róisín (P51)
http://www.military.ie/images/roisinb0.jpg

LÉ Niamh (P52)
http://www.military.ie/images/le_niamh_small.jpg

Róisín Class OPV SPECIFICATIONS:

Length Overall (metres)78.84m
Beam (metres) 14m
Draught (metres) 3.80m
Displacement (tonnes) 1,500t
Speed (knots) 23kts
Endurance at 15kts 6,000ml
Complement 44 (6 Officers and 38 Ratings)
Main Machinery 2xTwin 16cyl V26 WARTSILA 26 Medium Speed Diesel giving 5000kW at 1000rpm, 2xShaft
Weapons 1x76mm OTO Melara Cannon, 2x1.27mm HMG and 4x7.62mm GPMG



Comandante Cigala Fulgosi - P490
http://www.marina.difesa.it/unita/pagine/navi/fulgosi/images/fulgosi.JPG


Comandante Borsini - P491
http://www.marina.difesa.it/unita/pagine/navi/borsini/images/borsini.JPG


Comandante Bettica - P492
http://www.marina.difesa.it/unita/pagine/navi/bettica/images/bettica.JPG


Comandante Foscari - P493
http://www.marina.difesa.it/unita/pagine/navi/foscari/images/foscari.jpg


Comandante Class OPV SPECIFICATIONS:

Displacement: 1520 tons full load
Dimensions: 88.6 x 12.2 x 3.4 meters
Propulsion: 2 Wärtsilä NSD Italia diesels, 2 shafts, 25 knots
Crew: 50 + 30 transients
Aviation: flight deck and hangar for 1 helicopter
Armament: 1 76 mm OTO DP, 2 25 mm AA

The ship design incorporates low radar and infrared signatures. The first three vessels have an all-steel superstructure, but the fourth, Commandante Foscari, is constructed from glass-reinforced plastic, including most of the mast and the helicopter hangar. This composite material is lighter and therefore reduces fuel consumption.

John P Hannon
6th November 2005, 12:22
A 76mm, Dual Purpose and 2 25mm guns, very impressive fire power. If you added 2 'clip on' missile launches there is a fantastic patrol come attack craft.

Goldie fish
6th November 2005, 12:31
To attack what?

These ships In Italy are kept quite busy engaged in fisheries protection and attempting to stem the flow of Illegal immigrints accross the adriatic and from North Africa. Missile launchers are not really required.

John P Hannon
6th November 2005, 21:05
Any ship afloat....sheeeesh!

hptmurphy
6th November 2005, 22:22
looks like astealth Eithne...or an upgraded Roisin...now can we have something that we actually need!

ODIN
6th November 2005, 22:40
What would you suggest hptmurphy??

FMolloy
7th November 2005, 13:19
Any ship afloat....sheeeesh!

Drug & people smugglers tend not to use warships, so the need to fire missiles at them is minimal. These are only patrol vessels, Italy has proper warships for the more dangerous tasks.

John P Hannon
7th November 2005, 13:31
what I said was this IS something one could do to turn it into an attack craft, I did NBOT say you have to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

hptmurphy
7th November 2005, 15:42
Something like an oil rig tender the would act as a patrol ship..a rescue vessel and be able to carry stores...we are not a beligerent nation so no requiremnet for warships....just a specilised role vessel..the last one we had was the Setanta.....she was old and abused and could never operate as a fleet tender...but the idea was right.....lease a Oil rig tender ..see if it works and after a period of say a year..then make a decision.

ias
23rd November 2005, 15:02
Has anybody managed to access www.defense-aerospace.com today, it has an article with the above title (obviously I haven't)?

IAS

Pod
14th August 2006, 22:18
I know it'll be a few years yet:rolleyes: but anyone have any ideas for a new CPV?

My own preference is for the Aker Yards (i.e. Massa) Marine 62m.

http://www.masamarine.com/ship_patrol.html

DeV
14th August 2006, 22:40
That wouldn't meet the requirements for endurance - 30 days (the 62m has an edurance of 5 days). And somehow has a crew of 56!!

Pod
14th August 2006, 22:49
Yeah I know, but reduce the crew, use the space for fuel / stores, and it looks f****n' horny!

Dogwatch
14th August 2006, 22:55
How about the RAN Inshore Patrol Craft, that's if the NS don't want to replace the CPV's with another set of OPV's?

http://www.navy.gov.au/gallery/images/NIUW8065726_050131_025_025.jpg

http://www.navy.gov.au/gallery/images/NIUW8065726_050131_030_028.jpg

Or the RNZN IPV?

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/ffddd483-8bed-43d1-86d7-08c2f4d1bdbe/0/ipvatspeed.jpg

http://www.tenix.com/ImageLibrary/Page_974_1.jpg

Platform Characteristics:
Length Overall 55m
Waterline 50.3m
Beam 9m
Draught At propellers 2.9m
Displacement 340t
Complement Navy 20 (+2)
Civil 4
Additional accommodation 12

Performance
Speeds
Max 25kts
Economical 12kts
Loiter 4-7kts
Range
@ 12 knots 3000nm
@16 knots 2000nm
Endurance
More than 7 days

hptmurphy
14th August 2006, 23:01
buy more OPVs.....peacocks were a once off deal..never to be repeated..nothing else like them ever again.

Turkey
14th August 2006, 23:03
agreed, more OPV's ........keep it simple

Goldie fish
14th August 2006, 23:41
Heres a mad notion...The Kiwi MRV has a 60 tonne crane to lift on their Landing craft. What if our MRV, instead of Landing craft, had patrol boats the size of the Customs cutter, to do the coastal work, and returning to their mother ship after completing the inshore patrol?

hptmurphy
14th August 2006, 23:42
look at the cost factor!

Pod
14th August 2006, 23:52
Heres a mad notion...The Kiwi MRV has a 60 tonne crane to lift on their Landing craft. What if our MRV, instead of Landing craft, had patrol boats the size of the Customs cutter, to do the coastal work, and returning to their mother ship after completing the inshore patrol?

Not as mad as you might think Goldie - I remeber seeing sometihing recently though where escapes me at the moment of a mothership set-up similar to what you mentioned.

As for cost- does anybody really think that DoF will sign-off on the MRV (given the current reduction in DoD budget share)?:frown:

DeV
14th August 2006, 23:52
Or use the landing craft as CPVs

Pod
14th August 2006, 23:56
The Swedish CB90's would be a better bet-more versatile though admitedly thet wouldn't be able to carry anything with more wheels than a motorbike

Goldie fish
14th August 2006, 23:59
The CPV issue depends a lot on whether a stop is put to salmon drift netting. If like the whitefish fleet, the government decides do compensate all those involved in that type of fishing, and prevents it, then it could become the remit of the Regional fisheries boards, who themselves have a nice little fleet of patrol boats, used mostly for pleasure trips.

And pod, trust me, you don't want to do coastal patrol in a flat bottomed barge like the landing craft. They are not designed to remain at sea for long periods.

Dogwatch
15th August 2006, 00:16
Heres a mad notion...The Kiwi MRV has a 60 tonne crane to lift on their Landing craft. What if our MRV, instead of Landing craft, had patrol boats the size of the Customs cutter, to do the coastal work, and returning to their mother ship after completing the inshore patrol?

Here's a photo of a Spanish Customs Vessel with a very large enclosed RHIB, which is something along the lines you're thinking. She has been involved in some very large Trans-Atlantic busts in International Waters over the past 3 years or so.

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/33355.jpg

Sorry for the size, hope the moderator can reduce it!

Here's a link to another photo.

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/51698.jpg

Sea Toby
18th August 2006, 17:25
For 30 million Euros, Ireland will at best receive another Roisin class OPV, or something very similar. It appears the NZ OPVs with the helicopter hangar and deck cost 40-45 million Euros, the new Italian patrol boats cost 70 million Euros.

However, the smaller NZ and Australian IPVs cost much less. My guess is around 10 million Euros. Whether they would be useful in the rough Atlantic is another story. New Zealand's seven ships of Project Protector ran $500 million in New Zealand dollars, more like 220 million Euros. 90 million Euros for the MRV, 40-45 million for 2 OPVs each, and 10 million Euros for the IPVs each.

Pod
20th August 2006, 09:27
My point exactly- 30million against approx 200 million - what does anybody in their right mind think is going to happen?
That not withstanding the B&V MEKO 100 OPV would IMO provide a very useful platform.

Sea Toby
20th August 2006, 19:09
The Dutch Rotterdam cost around 180 million Euros, whereas the New Zealand MRV cost around 90 million Euros. The Rotterdam's length is 162.2 meters, beam of 25.0 meters, displacement of 12750 tons full load, crew of 113. The New Zealand MRV's length is 131.1 meters, beam of 23.4 meters, 8890 tons full load, crew of 63. For a good sealift ship with a capability of delivering 250 troops, the ferry delivers half the capability for half the price. I'm sure this ship could deliver more troops if the helicopter hangar capacity was decreased.

The problem I have with the MEKO 200 MRV is I don't think it has enough lane meters, nor enough troop carrying capacity as the New Zealand MRV. From the B&V website, the MEKO carries 150 army personnel, 550 tons of weight with 200 lane meters of vehicle space. The NZ MRV carries 250 army personnel, twice as much weight with 403 lane meters of vehicle space, plus five 10 ton helicopters.

Instead of buying two MEKOs at 60 million Euros each, why not buy one NZ MRV and one Roisin, 90 million plus 30 million Euros? They both add up to 120 million Euros.