PDA

View Full Version : New Navy Ship??(fiction)



Farel'
16th June 2004, 08:17
Originally posted by hptmurphy
The L.E Emer is the next earmarked for retorement having been commissioned in 1977.....but there is no talk of a replacement yet.


{MOD Note: Everything from here on is false and was designed deliberatly to decieve those who were using IMO as a source without properly crediting the site.
Take everything from here on with a pinch of salt}

NEWSFLASH
The replacement is being discussed.
A top level team of officers,including the Engineering Superintendant met with the Danish navy recently,and visited the Shipyard where the new class of Multi role Ship ABSALON is being built.
The word is that the NS Know what they want,and were impressed with the capabilities of Rotterdam,though much of its features would be redundant in irish service,such as the Dock.
However the Vehicle deck,and its ability to contain a Hospital aboard,as well as the obvious advantages of a helipad,whether or not the aircraft were deployed,was identified,with the Tragedy in Liberia where a number of rangers were injured in a traffic accident,proved the usefulness of such a ship,while LE Roisin was on station there at the same time.
The Danish design provides the same features as Rotterdam,in a smaller scale,with what is considered most important for the Scrambled eggs,relatively small crew!
In the past the NS have been very impressed with the Danish Thetis type of frigate,which is a frequent visitor to irish ports,particularly the way they are crewed,with a smaller crew for routine deployment,capable of being expanded dramatically during overseas deployments.
The ship recently looked at,has a normal crew of 100,with cabins for 169,but a maximum capacity for 300
http://www.smk.svn.dk/images/projekter/fs-ps/designudkast_fs_ruminddelin.gif
So you could carry the full Company at least,with their vehicles,and deploy them either by sea,on the quayside,or by heli,which doesnt have to be yours,as the helipad is large enough to operate 2 EH101s
However,to justify the Large size of this vessel,one ship will replace two,as it is intended to replace 2 of the older types,with LE Eithne being mentioned for possible early retirement,with her helipad and hangars long redundant,and the imminent demise of the dauphin Helis from Air Corps service. Aoife and Aisling were Built in 79/80,and have recieved major refits since their building,which has extended their lifespan dramatically. The first of class,Deirdre,which had poorer hull integrity than the later P20s served 30 years and is currently touring the med as a Yacht. Emer did not do as well as her younger sisters,and spends more time in drydock for repair that at sea.Her replacement is considered a matter of Urgency at the moment.
Removing these ships from service,and the freeing up of their crews for this newer vessel would be the logical step.
The white paper stated 8 ships as we know,but size was not mentioned.

When it comes to Financing,the sharing of facilities with CIT in the new maritime college in Ringaskiddy will see a reduction in costs for transporting students daily to Bishopstown,combined with the fees paid by CIT for the use of their land,and the selling off of much of the obsolete training equipment that was being used to train Naval cadets has given the NS purse some freedom. Combined with this the ability to use this vessel to train civilian cadets,as well as Naval cadets,though as yet undecided,will also see the NS recieving an income.

However the real stumbling block is by design,the danish vessel is fitted with a 5 inch gun,however,in common with all danish designs,the weapons fit is modular,and probably open to negotiation.
The best thing about this design is that it provides the NS with true warship capabilities,as well as much required support capabilities for future overseas operations,while maintaining reasonable size at only 135M,and 6300 tonnes.
http://www.sok.dk/enheder/2004_06_04/01_1.jpg
The recent government trend of providing the Defence forces with actually useful military equipment,lends hope to the plans to procure this type also. The Army got their modern APCs,the air Corps are getting their blackhawks(presumably),it follows that the Naval service will get a proper warship..

http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/index_projekter.htm

hptmurphy
16th June 2004, 19:38
my sources tell me that all armament is to be automated to cut down on crewing numbers with the venerable OTO Melara 76mm an a pair of CIWS goalkeepers as point anti aircraft defence. Small arms will be met in the form of various pintles to mount .5 inch HB2s.

the question of missiles has not been raised as there is no requirement given the CIWs fit. A crew similar to that of the current Pvs plus a few specialists to operate loading and unloading.


This is the way forward......can carry out joint operations when required plus have the flexibility of a patrol vessel. suggested names include Setanta2.

ForkTailedDevil
16th June 2004, 19:42
However the real stumbling block is by design,the danish vessel is fitted with a 5 inch gun,however,in common with all danish designs,the weapons fit is modular,and probably open to negotiation.

Can anyone explain the problem with the gun being fitted.Is it to do with the extra crew required for it?

Goldie fish
16th June 2004, 19:48
The 5 inch is not in service on any other irish naval vessel perhaps,and all newer vessels are being fitted with the 76mm,which is compact.
Didn't setanta become CùChulainn?
Could much of the loading and unloading be carried out by civilian crew,experienced in Ro-Ro work? RFA style with a Naval/Civilian mix?

Bud Fox
16th June 2004, 19:53
Type:
Flexible Command Ship

Class:
ABSALON Class

Specifications

Built by:
Odense Staalskibsværft, Lindø

Design:
Naval Material Command, Denmark in cooperation with Odense Staalskibsværft, Lindø

Laid down:
November 28, 2003 (Production start: April 30, 2003)

Launched:
February 25, 2004

Commissioned:
Planned for commissioning July 1, 2004

Pennant Number:
L16

Int'l Call Sign:
OUFA

Displacement:
6,300 tons

Dimensions:
Length:137.6 m
Beam: 19.5m
Draught: 6.3m

Complement:
100 men, cabins for 169 men.
Total lodging capacity up til 300 men.

Propulsion:
2 ea MTU 8000 M70 engines at 8.200 kW each
2 ea Propellers
1 ea Bow thruster (15 tons pressure)

Range:
9,000 nautical miles

Armament:
1 ea 127 mm (5”) Mk 45 Mod 4 Gun

Later, also:

2 ea Close In Weapon Systems
? ea Harpoon SSM
? ea Sea Sparrow VLS Mk. 48 SAM
? ea Stinger SAM
? ea SEAGNAT/SBROC Mk. 36
? ea Anti submarine torpedoes
? ea Mines

Additional space for:

2 ea Landing Crafts of the LCP Class
2 ea Augusta-Westland EH-101 Helicopters

Speed:
23 knots (service speed)



The flexible command ships can perform a number of national and inter-national task, including transportation of personal and material, command platform for land, air and sea operations. The ship also has a mine laying capacity. It also has the capacity to carry out humanitarian operations as a hospital ship.

The ship is fitted with a 900 square meter flexible deck to perform in different operations and has a roll-on-roll-off (RO/RO) capacity aft.

mutter nutter (again)
16th June 2004, 20:08
I just have a question, now if the new ship was equipped with CIWS wouldn't that be a justification on putting ASM's on it because if that is required then maybe the ship will be going into place's were an anti ship capability would be vital:confused:

ForkTailedDevil
16th June 2004, 20:15
Thanks for the explanation on the gun Goldie.
Sounds exactly like the kinda ship I was trying to explain in one of my other posts.
2 EH101s? Sounds like enough room for 3 or 4 navalised Panthers or EC145! The government will be so happy to hear that.:p

Aidan
16th June 2004, 20:45
The numbers of troops carried seems a little low, what would the chances of a redesign, removing the space for the landing craft and replacing it with more bunk space?

So, using the same hull and machinery, you'd get a more useable vessel for the same money with the ability to deliver more troops on the other end..

AshM are generally considered offensive weapons, the gun fit mentioned would be more than sufficient against small attacking vessels, which would be the main threat. In any case, a vessel such as this would have to be escorted in any situation where there was a serious threat.

To be honest, I've heard various rumours about this vessel for a long time (3-4 years) from those within the NS, but funding and Govt support seem to be as far away as ever. The NS may know what they want, the DOD may even be on board with the project, but there has yet to be any form of announcement on the subject. I wouldn't hold my breath, it may happen, but it will be a while.

ForkTailedDevil
16th June 2004, 20:50
I think the main question is with any troop ship acquired-What is the maximum number of troops the government would send abroad anyway.If you knew that you could plan these vessels accordingly.

DeV
16th June 2004, 21:14
Total of 850 troops AT ANY ONE TIME is the agreed amount under UNSAS / EURRF, including a light Inf Bn.

DeV
17th June 2004, 17:41
After being asked on what basis I am suggesting "suitable" vessels, what type / equipment fit / weapons fit / crew etc, should we be looking at?

Goldie fish
17th June 2004, 19:58
There is a post in this section which deals with this in detail. Find it and have a read of it to see what the NS wanted,some years ago at least.

morpheus
18th June 2004, 13:46
Has this one been mentioned, i was on franks board where they were discussing *choke* Naval issues *choke* :D

Anyway, someone mentioned credible insider info that the NS was interested in this concept and following its development. Its a support ship that Denmark are currently having built...

The design packs a hefty punch and i doubt wed require the armaments but the rest of the design idea seems very sound and suitable for our waters.

http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm

Farel'
21st June 2004, 00:59
Further to the suggestion above that the weapon fit will differ from the danish design, A number of weapons are currently in storage in Haulbowline,including a Fully functioning OTO Melera 3 inch DP,and 3 Bofors L70 on powered mounts,with local control.
It seems this ship is also capable of carrying the New containerised field hospital,operational,within the hangar...

DeV
21st June 2004, 01:02
Where did the weapons in storage come from?
Where they taken off vessels or bought just for training?
Is the 3 inch DP, the 76mm?

Farel'
21st June 2004, 01:12
Why would you require 3 identical weapons for training,when the ships with the same weapons are usually tied up in the basin?

DeV
21st June 2004, 15:20
So where did they come from?

Come-quickly
22nd June 2004, 00:13
Originally posted by morpheus
Has this one been mentioned, i was on franks board where they were discussing *choke* Naval issues *choke* :D

Anyway, someone mentioned credible insider info that the NS was interested in this concept and following its development. Its a support ship that Denmark are currently having built...

The design packs a hefty punch and i doubt wed require the armaments but the rest of the design idea seems very sound and suitable for our waters.

http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm

Why wouldnt we require the armaments? Do the UN deploy a lot of peacekeepers to church picnics?

Farel'
25th June 2004, 10:00
Latest news:It has been decided that the full size Danish ship is excessive for our purposes. However they are looking into the possibility of accepting the patrol version,which is identical,but for the absence of one deck,while keeping a reduced version of the RO-RO capability. In short,same ship,with one deck less,and a P instead of an A in the pennant number.
Word on the ground has it that the Lithuanianians are interested in Eithne...They are keen to rebuild their Navy around Nato Compatibility,and oddly enough Eithne allows them to do this. Quite a lot of activity on the foxes island to be honest..

andy
25th June 2004, 13:33
http://www.navalteam.dk/images/støtte_med_skygge_container1.jpg

Is the DF seriously looking at purchasing the above with the absence of one deck? whats the unit cost of one of these things??:eek:

Come-quickly
25th June 2004, 17:25
Originally posted by Farel'
Latest news:It has been decided that the full size Danish ship is excessive for our purposes. However they are looking into the possibility of accepting the patrol version,which is identical,but for the absence of one deck,while keeping a reduced version of the RO-RO capability. In short,same ship,with one deck less,and a P instead of an A in the pennant number.
Word on the ground has it that the Lithuanianians are interested in Eithne...They are keen to rebuild their Navy around Nato Compatibility,and oddly enough Eithne allows them to do this. Quite a lot of activity on the foxes island to be honest..

Em wouldnt that mean extra costs to get less capability?

Bud Fox
25th June 2004, 21:24
Not sure on cost...

http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm


The ro-ro version has a diesel propulsion plant of two MTU 8000 will provide a maximum speed of 23 knots.

A patrol ship/frigate derivative is being designed for inclusion with the first two ships to be included in the Danish 2005-2009 defence plan. Omitting the RO/RO deck it will be one deck lower, will have more STANDARD FLEX container positions, and will have a propulsion plant providing a speed of about 28 knots.

John
25th June 2004, 22:03
The SRC90E.

http://www.storebro.se/models_90e.asp

http://www.storebro.se/archive.asp?DocID=36

John
17th July 2004, 02:34
http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/beskrivelser/fs-ps-filer/image004.gif

The Bridge

http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/beskrivelser/fs-ps-filer/image014.jpg

http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/beskrivelser/fs-ps-filer/image016.jpg

http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/beskrivelser/fs-ps-filer/image009.jpg

Click here for a larger version of the above image (http://www.smk.svn.dk/images/projekter/fs-ps/skitsetegning_sektioner-filer/image001.jpg)

http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/beskrivelser/fs-ps/webgallari/images/IMG_1556.jpg

More Pictures Here (http://www.smk.svn.dk/projekter/index_projekter.htm)

paul g
17th July 2004, 19:02
Thanks john

Will happily admit that i don't speak Danish, but looked at the link you provided, and it appears to me that something listed as the Nye inspektionsfartøjer might be more in line with what the naval service budget than the Flexible support ship

Info about the new danish OPVs can be found on

www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Historien/Skibshistorier/NyeInspektionsfartoejer.htm

Unfortunately its in danish, but form what i can make out, it appears to be designewd for operations in Greenland, while having a capability to support overseas missions and undertake anti-submarine warfare, might be in the running to replace the three ships due for replacement this decade.

Rooster
12th August 2004, 18:46
Originally posted by morpheus
The design packs a hefty punch and i doubt wed require the armaments but the rest of the design idea seems very sound and suitable for our waters.

http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm

Why does the INS not follow the danish model, would be interesting to find out the difference in the budgets between the two nations considering that they have similar sized nations and would be considered by some to be maritime states. Besides, if Irelands forces do continue the trend of increasing operational tempo then a heftier punch might be needed.

Sarsfield
22nd August 2004, 20:45
Senior naval staff were furious when the govt announced the figure of 8 ships, especially as the RACO report recommended 15 and the Price Waterhouse Report stated clearly that 8 ships could not even fulfill the Dept of Marine request for boardings and fishery protection never mind any drugs interdiction or 'defence 'roles. PWR recommended a minimum of 12.

As a result the navy are determined that all new vessels will be considerably larger, more capable, faster with greater endurance and able to interoperate with other western navies on UN missions. They are pushing for the next ships to be based on the new HDMS Flex warship Absalon.

Please note that the then Minister Molloy in 1977 stated that the Irish navy needed and would receive 15 OPV and 10 CPC!!!! Also EU agreed to fund 65% of 4 P-31 but Verolme made such a dogs dinner of P-31 the EU refused to fund the remaining 3 due to excessive cost overruns!!!!

The original plan was for the P-31 class to be upgraded to corvettes with anti sub torpedoes and a close in weapon system. Part of this initial plan was to establish a small naval air arm which was to be designated the Naval Air Service and whose pilots would be trained by the Air Corps.

The 2 specialised naval Dauphin helicopters were to grow to a fleet of 5 and the Air Corps fleet was to grow to 10 Dauphin to replace the Alouette for coastal rescue. Four larger Puma were to be acquired for troop transport and long range SAR.

Unfortunately like all well conceived PDF plans this was destroyed by the politicians and the downturn in the Irish economy. Of course the PDF was assured that once everything in the economy upturned the plan would be applied. SUCKERS!!!!!

PS. Don't forget all of the above was 65% grant aided by the EU [ including a planned total of 4 Casa Persuader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REMEMBER ALL YE MATELOTS THERE WOULD BE NO 'NAVY' AFLOAT IF WE HADN'T JOINED THE EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goldie fish
22nd August 2004, 23:24
Originally posted by Sarsfield

As a result the navy are determined that all new vessels will be considerably larger, more capable, faster with greater endurance and able to interoperate with other western navies on UN missions. They are pushing for the next ships to be based on the new HDMS Flex warship Absalon.

A confession for you. Some of the MODS and members of IMO invented this story to see how far what is posted here is taken a sgospel or "defence forces source" by the less ethical in the media. You took the bait it seems. It is a product of my over active imagination,propogated with the assistance of a few well placed friends.


Also EU agreed to fund 65% of 4 P-31 but Verolme made such a dogs dinner of P-31 the EU refused to fund the remaining 3 due to excessive cost overruns!!!!

2 P30 class were planned,plus a similar type earmarked for Research. Eithne was supposed to cost €12m,but due to poor research on the part of the DoD,who assumed you could just put a flat deck on a P20 and land a heli on it,and A dockyard that was seeking handouts in time of recession wen all around were tightening purse strings,as well as a thoroughly unprofessional approach to work,the cost skyrocketed to almost €30m,delayed by 2 years.


The original plan was for the P-31 class to be upgraded to corvettes with anti sub torpedoes and a close in weapon system. Part of this initial plan was to establish a small naval air arm which was to be designated the Naval Air Service and whose pilots would be trained by the Air Corps.
Fiction. Possibly rumour,but still fiction.The need for CIWS was not accepted in naval warfare until Post Falklands,at which time, the P30 class was already in the plate cutting stage.


The 2 specialised naval Dauphin helicopters were to grow to a fleet of 5 and the Air Corps fleet was to grow to 10 Dauphin to replace the Alouette for coastal rescue. Four larger Puma were to be acquired for troop transport and long range SAR.
The P30 class was designed to operate the Lynx helicopter. The plan to aquire the Puma did in 1983 after the return of 242 when it was decided we could not afford one. The Dauphin was a compromise.




PS. Don't forget all of the above was 65% grant aided by the EU [ including a planned total of 4 Casa Persuader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REMEMBER ALL YE MATELOTS THERE WOULD BE NO 'NAVY' AFLOAT IF WE HADN'T JOINED THE EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was a Naval service from 1946. There was even a Naval service in 1971.

Now have you anything new to add to this or is it normal for you to write a theory on how our DF went awry? If so I suggest you research before writing again.

By the way. Welcome to IMO :)

hptmurphy
23rd August 2004, 03:06
the Eithne class was a project development that worked very well given the limited funding available for its development after commissioning. the ship was pressed into service without its role being fully being thought out. The whole gun and fire control system was a waste of money ...but it was the only feasible system at the time. the EU refused to pay for the weapons fit given that she was to be a fishery protection vessel and the whole helo thing with the aercorps was an unmitigated but forseeable disaster.

After the descision was made that the airwing would never be an integral part of the NS the plan just fell apart. If this descision had been made in the planning system the helo pad and hanger would never been fitted.

Top faults on the Eithne discovered after delivery listed would read like this.

Wrong gun and fire control system
the crane to hoist ammo on the focsle was rotten with sea water and had to be removed...hence all reammunition had to be done by hand throught the hanger down three decks to the magazine.
The rheinmetals were far too expensive and barrel replace ments were also costly
there was no flood system to the RU lockers on the bridge deck so all ammo had to be stored in the mag and dragged by hand to the guns when required.
the seariders cradles were backwards
the heli fuel tank was too close to the #2 engine room causing condensation in the heli fuel.
the hot water system was piped stainless steel which had to be replaced after the first year due to corrosion.
the airconditioning in the cabins never worked.
the sonar system had to be replaced by Decca after 12 months.
the quarter deck was prone to flooding in heavy seas.
the yokahama fenders supplied were too heavy to be raised by hand.
there was no run out facility at the Qms lobby where the PABX was ,for the gangway as a result the gangway had to be mounted on the flight deck.
The guard rails on the flight deck were steel instead of aluminum and were dangerously awkwark to operate in heavy seas.
the same were not galvanised and rusted like ****.
There was no tumble home on the deck and water lodged and was impossible to clear.
the fresh water tanks were not big enough to provide water for engine cooling and domestic needs over a prolonged time
the desalination plant could only provide 1ton per hour...the engines required 4 tons per hour for cooling

and some ****er lost the keys to my cabin......

but all in all she has more than paid for herself. remeber that she has been in service since 1985 and in 1986 spent 206 days at sea ...which equated to circumnavigating the globe eight times.
I loved that ship! :D

hptmurphy
23rd August 2004, 03:19
Sarsfield ...I think you probably believe too much of what you write...given your ideas of the proposed weaponry of the Eithne .


just one tiny problem...where were we going to put all this high tech shit as deck space is severly limited and why would we need it as she was designed as an off shore FPV.

I don't claim to have yor qualifications but I did live in the wagon for two years so i believe I am more than qualified to discuss the issue.
next time you have a chance to look at the vessel ..have a look around and see what the constrictions are! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Sarsfield
23rd August 2004, 16:14
Right!!!!!Thats a shot across by bows!!! The personal contribution of some-one who has served and witnessed the successes and failures of a vessel is very welcome/ I do find it strange that something as serious a health and safety issue as the man handling of 57mm shells up three decks has not 'leaked' to the media.

Goldie Fish: I am disappointed that you have such a suspicious mind regarding the media. It would benefit the Naval Service far more if you adapted a pro-active relationship with certain people in the media.

Secondly, you have admitted fabricating information to find out which journalists are reading the board. This rather infantile attempt at being a double agent merely lowers the quality of this discussion board, drags it into disrepute and fails to garner support amongst the defence correspondents who could help raise public awareness of the great difficulties and lack of proper provision for our esteemed Naval Service.

A discussion board should be able to inform members and visitors alike of the difficulties, successes and future requirements facing all three services in Ireland.

Thirdly, never adopt distain and condescension in your attitude to other contributors.

Have you researched Janes Fighting Ships, An Cosantoir, Naval Conferences or discussed the current and future naval issues with serving senior officers? Well, come back to me when you do!!!!!

Four P-31 Class vessels were to have been acquired. They were designed to carry any five tonne helicopter. The Navy wanted the Lynx but the Air Corps wanted the Dauphin as there was a genuine concern that certain elements would confuse an Air Corps Lynx with a British Army Air Corps Lynx near the border.

Since the PF-20 Deirdre [ subsequently P-20] all vessels acquired have been 65% funded by the EU; please refer to relevant Dail Reports. I merely was enquiring to this strange way of funding for a naval service how many ships do you / or anyone honestly believe the Navy would have received since 1973 had this level of funding not occurred?

Why does a patrol ship need submarine detection sonar [PLESSEY PMS-26 ]? The eithne was designed for upgrading and had weight and space reserved for AS TT and a CIWS the Navy hoped would be either the Crotale or post Falkland / Malvinas light weight Seawolf. No funding ever appeared for this. Indeed funding was so tight, the Naval Service publicly thanked the then Army Chief of Staff for releasing the funds for the Navy to acquire the Boford 57MM Mk 1.

It is interesting to note that some regard the PDF as 'our'. The PDF REMAIN A PHYSICAL EXPRESSION OF AN INDEPENDENT NATION AND AS SUCH REPRESENT ALL PEOPLE OF IRELAND.

Senior naval officers are pushing for a version of the Flexible support ship but realise that they will be probably end up with a development of the new Vosper RN patrol vessel The RACO report was a well researched and compiled presentation into howthe service wished to proceed and gives the uninformed a very useful insight into how the Naval service sees itself.

Don't mess with the best, 'cos the best don't mess!!!

John
23rd August 2004, 16:21
Originally posted by Sarsfield
Secondly, you have admitted fabricating information to find out which journalists are reading the board.

I suppose that journalists only have their own professionalism to protect them in cases like this, developing and quoting reliable sources, that kind of thing.

Goldie fish
23rd August 2004, 20:26
The more you write,the deeper you drag yourself into the quagmire of .....whatever. Lets just say you are demonstrating that you haven't a clue. What do we have to do here to save you the embarassment of showing yourself to be a bluffer?
I am dissappointed that you feel, as a moderator of this section, i am not allowed to show disdain of a contributor who is demonstrating again and again his ignorance of military matters,while pretending to be an expert in same.

In future, I will ask you when using "sources" for your flights of fancy,that you quote from such sources,giving an online source where possible,instead of just paraphrasing as you have done here. It is highly unprofessional to paraphrase from somebody elses work without giving them the respect they deserve. If you have spent any more than a year in college studying anything,you will be aware of the method required to quote all sources.

I have read janes from 1976 to the latest issue. I have been a family friend of the man who designed Eithne,I attended her launch,I work with people who were involved in her building. I have subscribed to An Cosantoir since 1984.

Mick O'Toole
23rd August 2004, 20:51
"Goldie Fish: I am disappointed that you have such a suspicious mind regarding the media. It would benefit the Naval Service far more if you adapted a pro-active relationship with certain people in the media.

Secondly, you have admitted fabricating information to find out which journalists are reading the board. This rather infantile attempt at being a double agent merely lowers the quality of this discussion board, drags it into disrepute and fails to garner support amongst the defence correspondents who could help raise public awareness of the great difficulties and lack of proper provision for our esteemed Naval Service."

Any journalist who uses this board as a source of information is a disgrace to the profession. It is a largely anonymous board and therefore there is nothing to support claims made on it.

Also, I think Goldie Fish is totally justified in trying to smoke out any journalist visiting this board and trying to glean info from it.

And it is risible to suggest that people on this board should develop a pro-active relationship with the media - they are not authorised to. What a load of bollocks.

Goldie fish
23rd August 2004, 21:05
Originally posted by Sarsfield


Goldie Fish: I am disappointed that you have such a suspicious mind regarding the media. It would benefit the Naval Service far more if you adapted a pro-active relationship with certain people in the media.
Thats why we have Dublinmick,and others


Secondly, you have admitted fabricating information to find out which journalists are reading the board. This rather infantile attempt at being a double agent merely lowers the quality of this discussion board, drags it into disrepute and fails to garner support amongst the defence correspondents who could help raise public awareness of the great difficulties and lack of proper provision for our esteemed Naval Service.
Proper correspondants would have spotted this immediately and refuted it. Those on the board who were in the know were requested to remain silent on the matter. Using this board as a "source" is the lazy way of making a living,dont you think?



A discussion board should be able to inform members and visitors alike of the difficulties, successes and future requirements facing all three services in Ireland.

Thirdly, never adopt distain and condescension in your attitude to other contributors.

Have you researched Janes Fighting Ships, An Cosantoir, Naval Conferences or discussed the current and future naval issues with serving senior officers? Well, come back to me when you do!!!!!
I'm back


Four P-31 Class vessels were to have been acquired. They were designed to carry any five tonne helicopter. The Navy wanted the Lynx but the Air Corps wanted the Dauphin as there was a genuine concern that certain elements would confuse an Air Corps Lynx with a British Army Air Corps Lynx near the border.
Navy Lynx at the time had a tricycle undercarriage,Army lynx used by the BA on the border had skids. We also used a PUMA,they never shot at that..


Since the PF-20 Deirdre [ subsequently P-20] all vessels acquired have been 65% funded by the EU; please refer to relevant Dail Reports. I merely was enquiring to this strange way of funding for a naval service how many ships do you / or anyone honestly believe the Navy would have received since 1973 had this level of funding not occurred?
Deirdre carried the pennant number FP 20, either do your research or check your work before continuing,we can be extremly pedantic.


Why does a patrol ship need submarine detection sonar [PLESSEY PMS-26 ]?
What do you know about anti submarine tactics that would lead you to believe that one hull mounted sonar could tell the difference between a submerged submarine, a submerged mine or submerged wreck? Apart from one Danish vessel(which i assume you already know) what other anti submarine vessels are equipped with this sonar only?


The eithne was designed for upgrading and had weight and space reserved for AS TT and a CIWS the Navy hoped would be either the Crotale or post Falkland / Malvinas light weight Seawolf. No funding ever appeared for this. Indeed funding was so tight, the Naval Service publicly thanked the then Army Chief of Staff for releasing the funds for the Navy to acquire the Boford 57MM Mk 1.
As Murf already asked,where were they hoping to fit these missiles,and their associated radar trackers?




Senior naval officers are pushing for a version of the Flexible support ship but realise that they will be probably end up with a development of the new Vosper RN patrol vessel The RACO report was a well researched and compiled presentation into howthe service wished to proceed and gives the uninformed a very useful insight into how the Naval service sees itself.
Again the flex support ship is a product of my imagination,or else I have psychic powers...next weeks lotto numbers anyone? We have already discussed the possibility of using the VT EEZ patrol vessel here,so what you say is nothing new. Where can we see this RACO report you speak of?


Don't mess with the best, 'cos the best don't mess!!!

TOOL :)

Farel'
24th August 2004, 00:34
Originally posted by Sarsfield



Thirdly, never adopt distain and condescension in your attitude to other contributors.

Don't mess with the best, 'cos the best don't mess!!!

You have been weighed, you have been measured, you have been found wanting:mad:

hptmurphy
24th August 2004, 06:14
the proposed (yours) weapons fits were never envisaged as thes would require deck strenghtening......this was never the case. the 20mm MK7 oerlikon mounting has a recoil force of 7 tons per square foot....none of the upper decks were concieved to have this.( I was a gunner) thence the reason Deirdre was fitted with .5HMG rather than 20mm weapons. the rest of the class were fitted with Gambos and the decks had to be rebuilt...this was not the case with Deirdre,

The magazine arrangement would not allow for missiles or another feed to a deck monted weapon given its position in the ship.

regarding the reammunitioning it was not a health and safety issue as all the ammo on board is TPT which is not proximity fused and only has a self destruct charge fitted at the time of firing. This ammunition is carried in units of two and is is easily hand portable.the weight of the actual projectile is only about 10lbs.

recently the RBS system was fired for the first time live from the flight deck as this was the only missile ever fired from the ship. the reason this system was fired is that the stocks of ammo are at their use by date and have to be used. this was thought to be the only safe option to fire them at sea and the search radar on the Eithne DAO5 could provide the nessacary range safety zone. there is no missile firing ranges for AA work in this country.Only problem was nobody anticipated the reaction of the mounting and the whole lot nearly went for a swim!

I apprecate your imput and interest and hope my unique insight would be of some benefit. Nothing wrong with a abit of healthy discussion ..something the board has been lacking recently in my opinion.

The whole Lynx /Dauphin thing was a major cost over run as the hanger had to be dismantled to accommadate the dauphin whose rotor head is higher.....if you have the opertunity to inspect below decks on the vessel you will note that all the schematics feature a sea Lynx instaed of a dauphin ....so this is not a myth.

To anybody who knows the Puma was forbidden from operating in border areas for exactly the reasons outlined...thats why the Allouettes are liberally covered in tricolours.

On to journalists......
members of the DF are always abit cagey as they have not always presented members of the DF in the best light..prime example being some tosser in the Indo today on a bout hearing claims.Dublinmick I do like your crime reporting...although I don't buy your paper I do find your writings entertaining. especially now that we know that you make an effort to reasearch your topic and have learned to differenciate between tanks and armoured cars..hee hee.

Sars field I would like to read some of your articles ...any cahnce u might post a few links...and then we'll slaughter you.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt becuse on the subject of the NS I've read a lot of tripe...but your tripe seems to shine out! hee hee! seriously you seem to reasearch your subject and are humble enough to admitt that you don't have all the facts...but we can help you out ther!

Keep it coming . Its a chicken and egg situation if u didn't write it we couldn't read it.....and then criticize you!:D :D :D

sorry I nearly forgot the Eithnes sonar is not worth a wank as she has not the speed to keep up with a modern submerisble target. She could aquire it but once it move outside of range she could not track it,,,as was learned with a russian intruder during Purple warrior 87

FMolloy
25th August 2004, 14:04
Goldie Fish: I am disappointed that you have such a suspicious mind regarding the media. It would benefit the Naval Service far more if you adapted a pro-active relationship with certain people in the media.

There have been several incidences where lazy journos have read posts on this site & printed them in their papers almost word for word, so forgive us if we have a low opinion of some of them.

ForkTailedDevil
17th September 2004, 05:13
Don't know if this site was put forth in the mentioning of Danish ships but you naval types may be interested in these tin cans

http://www.navalteam.dk/default.htm

I like the look of the Flexible Support ship and also love the concept of the Flex 100 being remote controlled. They all seem modular and adaptable.

Goldie fish
17th September 2004, 06:06
Did you miss the memo?

ForkTailedDevil
17th September 2004, 17:55
Actually, yes.
I looked about but I didn't see this particular site mentioned in connection with the Danish vessels though other links provided by others also gave info on them. Thought a further site would be nice.

Goldie fish
17th September 2004, 18:59
You'll find more details here

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4188