PDA

View Full Version : OPV Replacement



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Goldie fish
27th August 2005, 22:58
http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1494&g2_serialNumber=1

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1492&g2_serialNumber=1

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1490&g2_serialNumber=1

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

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1496&g2_serialNumber=1

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1498&g2_serialNumber=1



In case you missed it in FAQ. This is what the navy are referring to as P61(though it looks more like an A/P 61 to me)


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

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

Crew:
Total 150 + 10

Helicopter:
optional

The MEKO® 200 MRV is designed according to the same rules and principles as applied to the MEKO® 100 OPV. lt has been designed as a long range, high endurance cutter with the enhanced flexibility to operate as a true Multi-Role Vessel "MRV" with additional mission capabilities. As a larger vessel, the MEKO® 200 MRV obviously outperforms the MEKO® 100 OPV having more space for more equipment and personnel.

Furthermore its has:

-Superior seakeeping characteristics
-a significantly longer range and endurance of above 8000 nm run 30 days
-higher availability for longer operations on the high seas
-larger boarding party capacities due to:
-Two 30 knots / eight person RIBs
-An additional nine meter 25 knot long range inspection/ rescue boat equipped with the appropriate communication systems, which can be launched and hoisted up to SS5
-On deck space and stowage for oceanographic/ hydrographic/ environmental equipment containers
-on deck stowage of wheeled equipment with the following advantages:
-all equipment can remain fully fuelled and ammunitioned ready for immediate action upon arrival
-less fire and explosion hazards below deck
-no necessity for explosion proof ventilation in covered cargo decks
-vehicle weapons can be deployed as additional defence guns
-On deck stowage and operation of:
-Remote controlled minesweeper/ minelaying equipment
-UAVs and UUVs
-Accurate dynamic positioning without heading (two CPPs, bow thruster, two independently controllable rudders)
-Heavy lifting 20-tonne gear/18 meter reach crane
-Larger training facilities for up to 150 cadets with large briefing and lecture rooms,Practical demonstration of shipboard gear for trainees
-On-board medical training in the ship's hospital

Multi-Role missions for the MEKO® 200 MRV can be classed into the following tasks with overlapping and interfacing components: Peace Keeping and Sealift, Disaster Relief and Evacuation.

Bam Bam
27th August 2005, 23:01
Looks like it would be a big advantage for oversea's deployments

Old Redeye
28th August 2005, 03:25
Goldie,

How firm is this and what's the timeframe for contract and delivery. I'm a firm supporter considering all the the various alternatives to meet a critical requirement. Get this capability at sea ASAP! Next is airlift.

Gunner Who?
28th August 2005, 07:51
In a word WOW!!

Goldie fish
28th August 2005, 13:07
This is the proposal that the Naval service will be presenting to the Dept of Defence and Dept of Finance for approval. Nothing has been signed yet, but Emer will be replaced (as mentioned elsewhere) in 2007.

mugs
28th August 2005, 14:33
Again, that would improve overseas deployments BIG TIME!!

Lordinajamjar
29th August 2005, 05:27
This is the proposal that the Naval service will be presenting to the Dept of Defence and Dept of Finance for approval.

Goldie, so how does that process generally work?

Bam Bam
29th August 2005, 06:16
Remember in Oliver Twist when Oliver asked the man for more gruel.

The man with the ladel is the minister for Finance
The pot of gruel is the funds the government has to dish out.

And starring Willie O'Dea as Oliver Twist

"Please Sir, can I have some more"?

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Lordinajamjar
29th August 2005, 08:06
Remember in Oliver Twist when Oliver asked the man for more gruel.
That man would be Bumble, the beadle.
http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/images/twist_more-copping.jpg

Bam Bam, Oliver Twist did have a happy ending, he collected his inheritance. Let's just hope then that the Minister for Finance turns out to be like the kindly Mr Brownlow who adopted Oliver. :tri:

Goldie fish
29th August 2005, 20:50
It would be a nice election boast. Few governments could say the Naval service got three new ships during their term...

yooklid
29th August 2005, 21:50
It would be a nice election boast. Few governments could say the Naval service got three new ships during their term...

That's right. Because every Irish citizen weighs defence of the nation very highly when casting their ballots....

Goldie fish
29th August 2005, 21:53
Michael Smith got plenty of speeches/mileage out of the first 2...

yooklid
29th August 2005, 22:05
Michael Smith got plenty of speeches/mileage out of the first 2...

Maybe, but did it do him (or his party) any good?

Would these be the same 2 that were launched every year for 3 years?

Goldie fish
29th August 2005, 22:09
Yes.

Well they were re elected....

yooklid
29th August 2005, 22:12
Yes.

Well they were re elected....

True, but realistically was this a deciding factor?

California Tanker
29th August 2005, 22:13
Looks kindof like an enlarged Eithne with the cargo deck in place of the helo deck. Crew of 150? What's the current seagoing manpower of the entire Naval Service?

Those Danish SF3000s might fit in about right as well as an alternative, they're considered 'Expeditionary Frigates' with both patrol and cargo transport ability.

NTM

Goldie fish
29th August 2005, 22:17
Its nothing like an enlarged Eithne,except to landlubbers. Its a Modification of the Meko 200 Frigate design.(Try to read the post)

Vice Admiral
30th August 2005, 00:16
Where would we tie it up?

mugs
30th August 2005, 02:41
http://212.72.173.53/img/meko200_einsatz1.jpg
Is that a landing craft I see? :rolleyes:

Goldie fish
30th August 2005, 03:15
Where would we tie it up?

Didn't you hear that the West Wall of the basin is now the property of the Naval service?
Its only 121m long.


Is that a landing craft I see? :rolleyes:
No,that would be the Bere Island Ferry... :biggrin:



Attached photo: West wall of the Basin,with Naval service Landing craft in the foreground :biggrin:

ODIN
30th August 2005, 04:05
No,that would be the Bere Island Ferry... :biggrin:

It does bear a striking resembleance though doesnt it

Goldie fish
30th August 2005, 04:33
Yes it is a Landing craft. We used them in Liberia. They were not ours though.

In the attached photo of the slide that revealed the new vessel(as mentioned in FAQ) a Sikorsky Seahawk/Blackhawk can be clearly seen on the Helideck.

We don't have these either,and there are no plans to get any.

So lets just say for now that the vessel that looks like a Landing craft is either The bere Island ferry,or Marine transports own "Spike Island".

Lordinajamjar
30th August 2005, 08:58
OK Goldie I know this is getting a little ahead of ourselves but since the Emer is retiring in 2007 and the other P20s are following suit in successive years it would not seem too premature for the INS to have already determined what kind of replacements they would like to see.

So assuming (fingers-crossed) that the INS is succesful in acquiring the MEKO200 what would be your best guess for replacements for the other two ships? Would it be River Class, Roisin or MEKO100 or some other?

Goldie fish
30th August 2005, 20:15
Its too far off,and slightly off topic. It is covered elsewhere in this section however.

John
31st August 2005, 11:13
The configuration of the ship shown inline in this thread is different from the one shown of the ship pictured in the presentation.

The difference seems to be a structure between the stacks; absent in one, present in another. The position of the crane is different as a result.

More space for cargo on deck? Does that structure house a helicopter control room?

Aidan
31st August 2005, 11:44
Noticed that too John, note also the light gun (25-30mm?) turret is not on the NS presentation.

Sorry to have to ask the question. How much? (Assuming a sensor and weapons fit like the P50s ie, no sonar or air search radar, Oto 76mm and .50cal secondary).

The price is going to be critical, even assuming the NS can adequately 'sell' the idea that this would be an ideal disaster relief vessel, and force multiplier in terms of training and resupply.

Also, we is two budgets away from an election. Anything that could be spent on this could just as well be spent on social welfare or other hand outs, more conventional vote getters. Additonally, theres the fact that the crusties and SF and Joe Higgins would call this this an "aircraft carrier designed to aid the repression of third world countries, steal their resources and kill their children". None of these are exactly confidence inspiring in the short term. At a guess, the NS is playing a long game, hoping for a decision early in the life of the next Govt.

Goldie fish
31st August 2005, 19:49
The choices are simple. Select as ship such as this and ensure the provision of the service that the NS provide, or break another promise, and watch as the NS return to the bad old days of the early 70s.

The Greens in principal, agreed to an 8 ship navy when they made submissions to the White paper(though most likely they would have asked for an 8 ship,sail powered unarmed coastguard). As I have said in the other thread,its all to do with how the DF/Government market this to the voter. Is it a "state of the art warship" or "a multi purpose vessel, enhanced to carry Emergency aid on its decks,this saving the taxpayer the cost of hiring a Commercial vessel".

Blohm and Voss specialise in shipbuilding in a modular fashion,quickly and cheaply.

The design differences between both vessels are minimal, but you must remember that the Current L.E. Eithne looks nothing like the original proposals. Likewise,the P50 class look very little like their base design,the Canadian Guardian class "Vigilant".

Aidan
1st September 2005, 11:27
. Select as ship such as this and ensure the provision of the service that the NS provide, or break another promise, and watch as the NS return to the bad old days of the early 70s.

Is there a promise or are the NS chancing their arm?


As I have said in the other thread,its all to do with how the DF/Government market this to the voter

Not quite how it works in this instance. Something like this is a tough sell, its highly unlikely that it will win votes, but it most certainly could lose the Govt votes. On that basis, this is a three way 'discussion' between D/Fin, the Government and the NS/DOD, marketing it to the voter is important, but not nearly as important as marketing it to the Cabinet and D/Fin. The DF as a whole has tried in the past to come up with great and shiny plans, making perfect sense to all concerned, only to have them shot down ignominiously at a central level. Unless the NS has a prior committment, or a very good argument backed up by proponents at cabinet, this is going nowhere, regardless of how good an idea it is.

Goldie fish
1st September 2005, 20:05
I don't speak for the NS. I am not,nor never was a member of same. I have no idea how the Naval service are going to promote this vessel to the Important government departments. All I do Know is it has been in the planning stages for the last 2 years. The army Wanted 80 APCs. It got 65. The air Corps wanted 6/8 new helis. It got 6,the other 2 have not been ruled out yet. The capital expense here is similar,and the usefulness is similar. I fail to see how the other wings of the DF can get such large projects without complaint, and the NS, the only section of the DF that preforms its role 24 hours a day 365 days a year, can not secure theirs.

A realist attitude is pragmatic. However a "can-do" attitude will be more beneficial in the long term.

Aidan
1st September 2005, 20:30
All I'm saying is don't get yer hopes up until you hear some response or commentary from Minister Cowen, until that point all of this is just a few nice pictures.

Goldie fish
1st September 2005, 20:48
Hence the Title of the thread from the beginning.

yooklid
2nd September 2005, 17:14
Fishery protection Tender vessel?

paul g
2nd September 2005, 20:47
Going to the whole political arguement, while in an irish context defence has never been a vote winner, its not a vote looser either. The PC-9 cost 60 million euros for example and I'm pretty sure 99% of the general public has no idea what they do or why they were bought. Given the economy is doing well, we're becoming richer its possible to speculate that this vessel would be more than affordable.

DeV
2nd September 2005, 22:01
The design differences between both vessels are minimal, but you must remember that the Current L.E. Eithne looks nothing like the original proposals. Likewise,the P50 class look very little like their base design,the Canadian Guardian class "Vigilant".

The Vigilant is the first vessel built using the "Guardian Class" Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV). You can see what Goldie means.

Goldie fish
2nd September 2005, 22:10
Don't forget the future New Zealand OPV is based on Roisin's design.

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

And Roisin was originally supposed to look like this.

Goldie fish
20th December 2005, 21:12
Just remembered something..alll the current ships were designed and register as fishery protection vessels technically making them commercial vessels and not warships..thus making them cheaper to build....

what will the satus of any new vessel be....given the costs associated with building dedicated warships


Quote from Cdr Mellett.
"Steel is cheap and air is free".
Size is not a factor.

Bosco
20th December 2005, 21:32
Man that nis one nice looking ship. IF it comes on line it looks like it would seriously give the NS a significant boost in there capabilities, wheter it comes on line is a differnt story.

Aidan
21st December 2005, 15:06
Steel is cheap and air is free".

Goldie, I discussed this with Cdr Mellet 5 years ago, and he used the exact same quote to me then. The NS have been pushing for this vessel since before then, and they are making very little headway. Even the 3 for 3 replacement is very much not settled yet. This is an issue that is still a long way for resolution.

The Blue Max
21st December 2005, 18:47
Assuming its as Multi-Role as it infers does mean there could possible if ever required be equipped if operating in an area were Fluid/Conflict Situation could endanger the ship could we see the possiblity of other armanents being fitted to vessel such as Shorads (SAMS) or someform of Surface to surface to surface missile (SSM) or is this type of weapons fits even possible be fitted on this type of vessel?? i.e Meko 200 MRV

Nollaig Shona Diobh Agus Bliain Shona Nua go Leír

Goldie fish
21st December 2005, 19:12
I assume it will be armed appropriate to the risk. I notice RN vessels are being retrofitted with Anti Small Boat Miniguns.
SSMs or SAMs are no longer considered an appropriate stand alone defence for a single vessel, given current threats.

The Blue Max
22nd December 2005, 07:00
Hmmm interesting just after getting the An Cosantoir in question interesting article be the Cmdr Mellet just toward the end it does note teh other main competing vessels in such a class i.e MultiRole Vessel such as the Danish Absalon Class and New Zealand Tenix MRV Curiously was browseing internet yesterday and came across other Defence Forum which was disscussing the NZ goverment had ceased work on there MRV because of Health & Safety fears about the vessels of fears thats it was not water tight and could be prone to leakage has anyone else came acroos such info before or wat?? Personnally I would love to see the Absalon class in service it would offer a degree of interoperability within any proposed EU/UN Deployable force i.e withe The Danes etc... But it looks like the Bloom & Bloss (Or Whatever its called) is favoured by the Navy and does like a great vessel and would the Navy And Rest Of The Key Partners In The Defence Forces A tremandous Boost!! Thats will never hurt in the P.R department aswell..

Nollaig Shona Diobh Agus Bliain Shona Nua Diobh go Leír

kiwi1
22nd December 2005, 21:32
Hi all from NZ just thought i would give a update on the RNZN MRV.Work was halted temporarily while some issues were sorted launch date is still expected around may/june 06,pictures available in oct05 issue nz navy news.Other vessels in project protecter are progressing on target with all seven vessels to come online within next 12-18 months.

Truck Driver
22nd December 2005, 23:15
An NS officer wrote a very interesting article on this subject in December's An Cosantóir...

McCarthy
23rd December 2005, 00:09
Yeah Cdr Mellet, Its been mentioned in another thread

Goldie fish
23rd December 2005, 05:25
Hi all from NZ just thought i would give a update on the RNZN MRV.Work was halted temporarily while some issues were sorted launch date is still expected around may/june 06,pictures available in oct05 issue nz navy news.Other vessels in project protecter are progressing on target with all seven vessels to come online within next 12-18 months.

NZ Navy News Oct 05 (http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/3d0e728a-5479-45e2-8c63-3a0c7a99773d/0/nt104web.pdf)

The Blue Max
28th December 2005, 16:41
Just one questions about the Meko 200 MRV how exactly is equipment/cargo loaded below deck is it even possible to store the likes of the Iveco DROPS,Iveco TCV/CSS Vechicles etc.. can these along with other cargo be stored under deck with this design or is it just vechicles/Large Cargo can be carried above deck only???

Goldie fish
28th December 2005, 16:49
Below deck? As far as I can gather all large stowage is at deck level. People and compact stores can be handled below deck. Remember this vessel will only be doing resupply for a small percentage of its service.

Have you visited the Blohm and Voss website?

The Sultan
28th December 2005, 16:57
As I have said in the other thread,its all to do with how the DF/Government market this to the voter. Is it a "state of the art warship" or "a multi purpose vessel, enhanced to carry Emergency aid on its decks,this saving the taxpayer the cost of hiring a Commercial vessel".

Hmmm...Well with the recent announcement of a Rapid Response Specialist Corps and the Irish Volunteer Corps, the latter description may well be the case. It might just make for plain sailing through the tender process.

Its just such a lovely ship.

The Blue Max
29th December 2005, 08:00
Yea, Looks that way that only small/medium stores will be kept below deck such as Rations,Ammonitions,Fuel and other essestiantial stores. I wonder is there any form of large side access double doors etc so to load such equipment/stores from quayside??? personnally i would have taught during the first weeks of set up stage of Liberia Type Scenario this vessl would be very busy and would be diverted from it usual OPV taskings etc... (going to and from the mission Area Of Operation AO bringing in supplies) And I would say it would be interesting to see the likes of Mowags And Iveco DROPS And Others TCVs being carried above decks together and would be proud sight displaying some overseas deployable assets altogether.

The Sultan
29th December 2005, 13:12
Whats the deal with the difference between the pictures on the first post, and in the picture in Goldies post here (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showpost.php?p=92218&postcount=23)? Im talking about the location of the funnels.

Goldie fish
29th December 2005, 13:20
Whats the deal with the difference between the pictures on the first post, and in the picture in Goldies post here (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showpost.php?p=92218&postcount=23)? Im talking about the location of the funnels.

see post 26,27,28 this thread.

Please read the thread in full. you could find your questions have already been answered, before you even need to resort to the search function.


Yea, Looks that way that only small/medium stores will be kept below deck such as Rations,Ammonitions,Fuel and other essestiantial stores. I wonder is there any form of large side access double doors etc so to load such equipment/stores from quayside??? personnally i would have taught during the first weeks of set up stage of Liberia Type Scenario this vessl would be very busy and would be diverted from it usual OPV taskings etc... (going to and from the mission Area Of Operation AO bringing in supplies) And I would say it would be interesting to see the likes of Mowags And Iveco DROPS And Others TCVs being carried above decks together and would be proud sight displaying some overseas deployable assets altogether.

Its been done since 1978. Park a few panhards on the decks aft, all other stores can be broken into small lots capable of being stored below decks without needing any doors larger than those that already exist. Even Eithne has been reconfigured to carry 2 Mowags and 4 TEUs on her helideck.Click here for what they done in Liberia (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=1691)

The Blue Max
29th December 2005, 13:30
TEU they are 20ft container correct aswell as Two Mowags thats not a bad load would the Mowags be kept inside the Hanger or were exactly???

Goldie fish
29th December 2005, 13:32
What part of "on her helideck" confuses you? Any chance of a bit of punctuation now and again? It would make your posts a lot easier to read.

The Blue Max
29th December 2005, 13:42
Will Try,NO Promises LOL!! Sorry missed the last bit of your previous post thanks for quick reponse are the TEUs Container??? and has it ever been conducted to see will it work i.e training scenario to load Two Mowags and the Four TEUs???

Goldie fish
29th December 2005, 17:35
TEU=Twenty feet equivalent unit. (20 ft. container).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEU

moggy
3rd January 2006, 11:12
TEU=Twenty feet equivalent unit. (20 ft. container).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEU


Does anyone know the budget cost assainged to the ns on new ship costs???

McCarthy
3rd January 2006, 11:38
I dont know but it has to be close to 100,000,000 taking into consideration all the hi-tech dealies on board

The Blue Max
3rd January 2006, 11:50
I beg to differ but only at a guess another board member quoted that the Danish Absalon was priced at about 10000000 million Euros so considerin this vessel was fitted it far supiour weapons fit also had a large hanger for helo ops aswell the fact it was true RO-RO capable vessel which would ad imenseley to the cost i would reckon if this price realistically reflected to the Absalon then i would reckon the Bloon And Bloos equivilant would come in it at at sligthy under this at aroun 60/70 million accounting for several wrote above that the the Bloom And Bloos does not have e.g Hanger,RO-RO capable or superior Weapons Fit etc... This would be my reckoning on the figure personally.

McCarthy
3rd January 2006, 13:39
Sorry, I meant to say 100,000,000.
After comparing the specifications of P51 and the MEKO 200 MRV, the most obvious difference between the two is size ( the mekos displacement is more than double that of Roisin). As Cdr. Mark Mellet said in An Cosantoir "steel is cheap and air is free" so size isnt really a big factor when it comes to cost. Roisin cost around 30 or 60 million I think.
So the equipment such as navigational equipment and armament should play a big part but from what I can see there is only an Oto Melara 76mm near the funnels and another one on the bow gun deck-not a considerable amount of money. A goalkeeper on either side would be a good addition.
Would the helicopter be included in the ships costs? because there isnt a lot of space for a helicopter suited to the relief role. In my view the perfect helicopter would be a Chinook heavy lift which could take cargo and supplies in case of a disaster and could also take troops in case of trouble should we be required to go.
There will be two 8 person ribs on-board which are really cheap considering how much they're used (43,000 each if Im not mistaken)...
Ive asked a member of the Navy will it cost more than 60 million and he said that the final cost will far exceed that amount.
So, in conclusion..the ships cost is..any bodys guess :rolleyes:

futurepilot
3rd January 2006, 19:28
^^^
I think everyone would like to see the chinook in service here but what are the chances of that happening. Even the Merlin and NH90 would probably be beyond reach.

Goldie fish
3rd January 2006, 20:11
Lets keep the Heli discussion for the Air Corps section Please!

Naval vessels are not as expensive as one would think. Niamh and Roisin cost £23m each, and it is fair to say that they are no more sophisticated than the proposed vessel. Eithne, during her troubled construction, cost twice what was estimated in 1984, and took about £27m from the states coffers. That said, her weapon and sensor fit was far more complex than that seen on the P50 class.

In 1997, one for one replacement of the P20 class was estimated at £23m per ship. This was assuming that they would be replaced by similar OPV to the P50. The first £4.5m being spent this year on the initial planning and consultation process. A replacement of L.E. Eithne with a similar type of vessel(HPV) was estimated at £30m.(Note all figures in IR£). It is worth Noting that the report from which I take these figures, believed the total expendeture for an entire replacement of the fleet over an 18 year period, could be achieved through re investment of savings made since the Re Organisation of the Defence Forces in 1994.

This estimate did not factor in any role other than that of Fisheries Protection, and a Minimalist Multitasking Naval capability.(1998 report to the Steering Group on the Review of the Irish Naval service and Air Corps)

Another cost option being utilised in other Naval forces, including the RN, is that of leasing the vessels. A vessel such as the one being considered here, would serve a "less wealthy" nation well, in years to come. We would lease the vessel from the Builders in a Public/Private Partnership(as is the case in the Maritime college), with the option at the end of a fixed term to either Buy the vessel outright, or return it to the Builders, who are then free to sell it on the buoyant(no pun intended) second hand Naval market. 20 year old Naval vessels are quite popular with Eastern European and South American Navies.

Another consideration, given the proposed humanitarian role, is that some of the other Government departments and NGOs would be encouraged to fund elements of the vessel, mission specific to the use they consider they would make of it. Its a small fraction, but still a way of dispersing the cost.

But at the end of the day, if a good enough case is made for such a vessel, the Government will provide the finance, or failing that, will go with the over used begging bowl to Europe for some of the Funding. Remember that if we decide to claim mineral rights further than the 200mile limit, this will be of benefit to the EU, not just Ireland.

Its a bigger picture than just Ireland funding a naval vessel for Ireland.

California Tanker
3rd January 2006, 21:11
Hmm... Aegis destroyers are going for just shy of a billion dollars apiece. Must be all those special $20,000 toilet seats and $1,500 spanners.

NTM

Goldie fish
3rd January 2006, 21:17
Possibly something to do with the SPY1D Phased array too.

The Blue Max
4th January 2006, 12:56
Curious if you put other major recent Defence contracts in perspective to the proposed one of for this Multi Role Vessel (MRV) the two most recent major procurement contracts for the Air Corps has been the Pilatus PC-9Ms and the Agusta/Eurocopter Deals have both exceded over €60million in cost aswell as associated support infrastructure extra etc... and the Army contract for the Mowags APCs has exceded €80million so far (inculding recent ordered ones i.e 30mm ones)

So if the Naval Service was to place a order for a vessel such as the MRV it would be in keeping with recent Defence procurements cost wise possibly costing between €60-80million for this vessel.
Just Interesting comparsion I taught...

Goldie fish
4th January 2006, 23:04
The Meko 200 Frigates in use by Greece cost $1.2bn for 3. However they have a much more complex sensor equipment,engine and weapon fit to the ship being proposed here. The NZ Navy for example are currently building a fleet of 7 ships, for NZ$500m,(€285m) consisting of 2 OPV an MRV and 4 Inshore patrol vessels.

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=971&ListID=58

Lordinajamjar
5th January 2006, 01:28
If the following financial report is anything to go by, then I would guess that there is good chance that the ns will get exactly what they are asking for.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0104/exchequer.html

Goldie fish
5th January 2006, 01:33
When you consider that the current fleet due for replacement were for the most part buillt during a time of recession, when the state hadn't 2 pennies(phingins) to rub together, it makes the case all the more logical. But hey, I'm sure there is a tribunal around the corner that they could throw that money at instead...

Lordinajamjar
5th January 2006, 01:33
If the following financial report is anything to go by, then I would guess that there is good chance that the ns will get exactly what they are asking for.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0104/exchequer.html

The Blue Max
5th January 2006, 14:35
Hopefully it would be great to see further investment in the Irish Naval Service hopefully in the shape of the MRV and then Two vessels in the P50 class, they would enhance are capabilty by a huge amount and give the Key Parthners in the Defence forces a great asset to use for enhanceing are skills in area such as Tactical Anphibious Warfare Deployment etc aswell as providing a Training vessel for recruits and cadets and for the Maritime College that has been mentioned previously on this thread and acourse a new OPVs to add to the fleet..

Goldie fish
5th January 2006, 20:03
The simulators in the Maritime college are better than what any training vessel could provide. Lets walk before we can run. A decent replacment for Emer first. Dont even mention things like
Tactical Anphibious Warfare Deployment . Warfare is a dirty word when you are hoping that the EU will fund a portion of the building costs.

The Blue Max
5th January 2006, 21:50
I meant that in reality that the Defence Forces will be hopefully be using the likes of the MRV for Amphious Warfare Training aswell as other tasks as a training vessel etc.. im not suggesting we advocat this to the EU when we go to them looking for Aid to assist the Naval Service in purchasing such a vessel.

We that would primarily use thr MRV type for not just likes of Amphibious Warfare Training (which it wouldnt be anyways it spend the majority of life patroling the EEZ etc.. thats what i was trying to emply with my previous thread.

Goldie fish
5th January 2006, 22:48
stop using those words....

The Blue Max
5th January 2006, 23:47
Maybe this a bit more Politacally Correct or "P.C" what about "Amphibious Tactical Operations" does sound like it would be bit more like our style... and not to in the face such as a word like (Warfare)

pym
6th January 2006, 05:11
Tactical sounds far too military for most people in this country's liking!

Leave it at the just vague enough "amphibious support vessel" description. Which will have people thinking it's something from the viking splash tour....

The Blue Max
6th January 2006, 14:25
Sorry i think ive been misunderstood im refering to what such training (i.e Amphibious Troops Landings) will probly be referfed to under Irish Military Doctrine and im not just saying this what we should name the vessel.

mikeym
9th January 2006, 11:01
Would this "grey and green" ship be involved in fishery protection?

andy
9th January 2006, 11:28
on a slightly off thread note, what are irelands plans for naval vessels if we get the major extension to our sea boundaries ? Are there any more plans for naval vessels or is it just this single green/blue ship that is on the cards.

The Blue Max
9th January 2006, 14:56
Yes & Yes the prosposed MRV replacement will be used for a number of important task such as Fishery Protection (Patrolling EEZ) "which be there Blue Tasks" also with be capable of being used for such tasks as Amphibious Support Vessel for Army Deployments to overseas locations such as Liberia or Kosovo or possible future missions such Sudan or similiar.. It will also be capable of bringing supplies to Humanitarian Crisis Situations like in West Africa Or South East Asia it would possible of transporting supplies,NGOs and other associated agencys i.e Army Engineers,Medical Corps etc.. "which will be some of there Green Tasks" These are just some of the duties that the New Naval MRV Vessel will be undertaken if it is purchased.

On the other question of whether the Naval Service are only to recieve a Single MRV there are plans in foot for the NS to recieve Two other vessels to replace to replace the further Two P20 Class have been mentioned personnally I would love to see a further Two P50 Class Purchased to replace them..

Goldie fish
9th January 2006, 21:29
I imagine each request will be considered on a case by case basis. Perhaps a second vessel of this type would replace Eithne when she is finally due to retire, but I think it would be difficult to justify replacing all The P20 class with a large vessel of this type(But it would be nice).The current mixture of Large(p50) medium(p20) and small(p40) patrol vessels is probably the best mix, given the different roles that the Naval Service carry out.

Its "Blue/Green" Mikey, relating to the roles undertaken(not the ships colour). Fishery Protection is considered a "Blue" role, while carrying equipment or troops to missions overseas is traditionally a "Green" role.

Ta Dawn
12th January 2006, 06:38
You would think the PDF are landing troops on a weekly basis. This type of ship would be used three or four times a year for re-supply missions, in the mean time P21 will be gone soon gone and the other seven ships are trying to take up the slack of fishery protection. The patrol days are gone up again this year and there is a higher number of boardings to be carried out. The NS cant do this with one less ship. Where would she be birthed? We bearly have the numbers at the moment to put the eight ships to sea with the support needed never mind one with a crew of 150. The tax man wouldan't get value foe money out of this ship. What the NS need is anothed version of P51 or P52 that would be more suited to the Rapid Reaction Force (RRF)

pym
12th January 2006, 08:17
You would think the PDF are landing troops on a weekly basis. This type of ship would be used three or four times a year for re-supply missions, in the mean time P21 will be gone soon gone and the other seven ships are trying to take up the slack of fishery protection. The patrol days are gone up again this year and there is a higher number of boardings to be carried out. The NS cant do this with one less ship. Where would she be birthed? We bearly have the numbers at the moment to put the eight ships to sea with the support needed never mind one with a crew of 150. The tax man wouldan't get value foe money out of this ship. What the NS need is anothed version of P51 or P52 that would be more suited to the Rapid Reaction Force (RRF)


Did you read any of the above posts at all? I think the naval service know what's best for themselves. Also, it's been stated on this site, a few times now, that there has been space made available for this new, larger vessel in the naval base.

Goldie fish
12th January 2006, 20:21
Any relation to the Previously banned Waterford based sluggie, "the dawn"?

Ta Dawn
13th January 2006, 02:02
Sluggie?????????? I have the balls to go and do the regular PDF, not like yourself, someone who sits around reading and talking about it. Yes there is room being made in the baisin, but when a ship of this dimensions is alongside the west wall and there is ships alongside the east wall it dosnt leave much room for the likes of P31 P51 or P52 much room to move around. Think about reality and not about what your dreaming of.

Goldie fish
13th January 2006, 19:00
There is no need to go all RDF v PDF here. I have a proper well paying job in civvy street, the reserve is something I do in my spare time. Now Grow up, Make your point(if any) and back it up.
I do not "dream" these posts. Most of the information i post here is given to me from Officers and senior rates of the NS.

Its odd that you have the same surname as a former waterford based sluggie who we banned for insulting Female members of the Waterford NSR, and myself.Same sig as him too. Heard he got spanked by the NSR after we banned him...

BANDIT
28th January 2006, 07:17
I tend to agrre with Ta Dawn . We appear to need more ships and more people to crew them and as he implies should the navy invest in a ship that will give them increased capability for something that they may seldom if ever have to use. Yes I know someone will come back and say why not build ships without main gun as it will seldom be used but there is a probablity that it will be used.
Perhaps also the value of installing very expensive complex sensors and fire control systems also need to be reevaluated. Perhaps less sophisticated gear , would be better value for money and allow more ships more naval presence etc.

Goldie fish
28th January 2006, 13:41
What expensive complex sensors and fire control systems are you talking about exactly? Have you even read the thread?
I am pretty sure Cdr Mellet knows a bit more about naval ops than failed naval reservist Ta Dawn. I'll take Mellets word, if you don't mind.

BANDIT
29th January 2006, 18:36
Yes I am sure Mellet knows a lot more about Naval matters than Ta Dawn and I am sure me as well and I am sure Mellet is a very dedicated professional officer however Brass in all services in all armies enjoy empire building, a liitle subjective judgement at time etc. Just look at the history of military procurement and dare I say doctrine over the years to recall some momunmental cock ups from the brass or those who should know not only with our little band but with all armies, navies airforces etc. . The Dauphins for an example.. Who remembers the 203 sets
As for Ta Dawn being a failed sluggie well he is entirled to his opinion. I even spent a while when I was a scoolboy in the sluggies myself 303s and a trip on the Banba ...now I am showing my age and then went on to bigger bangs ..Anyway the point is he is entitled to his opinion..

BANDIT
29th January 2006, 18:39
Oh by the Blue Max way how in gods name are they going to deploy the ship to Sth and East Sudan--where the hassle is the only decent port is in port Sudan. a long way away and in Enemy terr. so as `to speak.

Goldie fish
29th January 2006, 19:02
..Anyway the point is he is entitled to his opinion..

Oddly enough, no he isn't. He was initially banned from this website for being abusive to other members of the naval reserve and IMO members,and he gave up his right to give his opinion here. He has since been moderated and will be banned again should he decide to have any further abusive outbursts.

The Officers of the naval service did not select the Dauphin.

Bosco
29th January 2006, 21:52
Question the navy have roughly 1000 personel can the handle a ship this big? Bear in mind im coming from an aero background where I here that a plane only need 20 man hours per flying hour I think is good. IS there such a thing with ships i.e. amount of time in dock before it can go out to sea.

eelmonster
29th January 2006, 22:00
question the navy?

eelmonster
29th January 2006, 22:01
bosco are you drunk?

Goldie fish
29th January 2006, 22:11
Well latest story I heard is that this large ship may reduce the fleet to 7 in the short term, to make up the difference in crewing size. (one large vessel, and another OPV are being considered to replace Emer,Aoife and Aisling,however the Latter may remain in service longer, with longer times tied up at the quayside))There is about 1400 in the NS at present, and as mentioned earlier, most of the ships are achieving 200 days at sea per year. The Marine engineers job is to ensure that any repairs or maintenance that cannot be done at sea can be done quickly while the ship is tied up at the quayside, minimising the vessels downtime. The majority of work is being done either in the Naval base or in Cork Dockyard.
Ships are not as maintenance intensive as aircraft, however things are done on a larger scale.

Lordinajamjar
29th January 2006, 23:36
Well latest story I heard is that this large ship may reduce the fleet to 7 in the short term, to make up the difference in crewing size. (one large vessel, and another OPV are being considered to replace Emer,Aoife and Aisling,however the Latter may remain in service longer, with longer times tied up at the quayside)).


Has nobody voiced any opinions about making more use of the reserve personnel to support manning levels to keep the Aisling at sea in this scenario. The navy has come a long way from the dark days when they only had the ability to support just one Flower class at sea using cannibalised parts from the other two Flowers which were no longer sea worthy. It seems odd that anyone in the service would support any backward steps that would effectively cut the current fleet strength.

Tell me it ain't so Goldie.

I remember a Granada TV programme from the 1970's which did a pretty good story on the INS. I'll never forget the interview with a group of cadets standing in front of an old rowboat that looked like it served in the Napoleonic wars. The poor guys were asked if they had ever been to sea with the INS and they all shook their heads. I don't know but I think that this may have been the kick in the pants that made an embarrassed Irish Government go out and quickly obtain 3 ex RN minesweepers.

Goldie fish
30th January 2006, 01:28
The NSR are already being used on a regular basis to crew Naval vessels. However it is a small force, and most of them have full time jobs, and are unable to give the 4 weeks that is now required for Patrols.

I think you misunderstand me somewhat. I am not suggesting that either Aoife or Aisling would be mothballed,on the contrary, both ships would remain at full readiness. However getting the crews is the difficulty. The Navy, like the rest of the DF has its establishment set at a certain figure, and they are prevented from recruiting above this figure. The Kiwis are suffering a similar problem, but they are finding "if you build it, they will come". As more of the public see the great progress that the Navy makes in new ships and capabilities, you will attract a greater cross section of potential recruit. But until that is done, the NS have to make do with the people it has, who are admittedly under pressure to juggle home life and the Governments expectations of vessel availability.
If each ship is spending 200+ days a rear on patrol, and when its not at sea its crew are getting caught for duties up to 1 in 4, then you will see greater wastage in the long term.

The solution as it was explained to me was to scale back the operations of P22 and 23 following the retirement of P21, to increase their usable Life beyond their proposed retirement date. This will allow for a longer workup for the New vessels. The Crew that would normally be on the vessel tied up would be reassigned to the Newer Larger crewed vessel.
P51,52 and 53 will be available for Longer patrols.
P61 will be available for longer patrols when not engaged in her secondary tasks,
P31 will be available for longer patrols.
P22 and P23 will alternate their active service towards the eventual end of their careers, maximising their availability until P61 is capable of fulfilling her longer Patrol routine, and will hopefully be capable of carrying out the patrol tasks previously carried out by the smaller P20s. The P20s will then be gracefully retired.
So in place of 2 CPV,1 HPV 3 OPV and 2 LPV, you have 2 CPV, 1 HPV,3 LPV and 1 Blue/green. You have one vessel less, but you are theoretically able to fulfil more patrol days.

WHat happens when the CPVs have to be replaced is a discussion for another thread, and another day.

You still have a fleet of Larger ships than ever before in service. This is not just an irish solution. The RN are doing the exact same thing at the moment, reducing their Fleet numbers for more capable vessels.

The Key, according to my source, is not actually the ships themselves, but the manning of them. The Irish NS has always been keen to keep the same crew with a vessel for as long as is practical. Some Senior ratings have spent their entire careers on one vessel. However the current model worldwide is to have a crew in excess of that required aboard the vessel.
If the vessel requires a crew of 45, then it has a crew of 70. This allows people to leave the ship for Leave, courses etc, without impacting on the vessels availability. However it does require the cooperation of those in the base who do not want to go to sea, as well as those responsible for recruiting.
My one regret during last years open day was meeting the otherwise enthusaistic O/Sig, who looked forward to going to sea on one of the smaller vessels, because "their patrols are shorter".
There is no place in a modern naval force for sailors who do not want to go to sea.

The Blue Max
30th January 2006, 08:13
Bandit the vessel that is displayed at beginging of the thread is a very capable design part of its design which is clearly displayed that it is capable of Embarkation And Operation of Landing craft similiar to the Landing Craft Utility (LCU) type which have been previouly been utilised by Overseas Army elements in Liberia operationing from the Dutch Rotterdam Class support vessel they did not need any port facilitys to operate from they just landed personnel and equipment (Mowags,CSS Trucks and Nissians) on the beach which had been "recce-ed" and made acceptable for landings by utilising a kind of lay-down mat that covers the mat on the sand to stop vechicles being slowed down by.

This operation could easily be preformed by Irish Army and Naval Service personnel operating overseas such operation could be preformed the exact same with little difference at all (Obiviously apart from comparing ship sizes or preformance could easily be done) and this is how such irish Forces could be deployed to hot spots overseas like Sudan etc.. were port facilities are un availible or are in enemy occupation.

Goldie fish
30th January 2006, 09:23
Max, if you are going to agree with me, can you use the occasional full stop or comma?

Bosco
30th January 2006, 13:11
Well latest story I heard is that this large ship may reduce the fleet to 7 in the short term, to make up the difference in crewing size. (one large vessel, and another OPV are being considered to replace Emer,Aoife and Aisling,however the Latter may remain in service longer, with longer times tied up at the quayside))There is about 1400 in the NS at present, and as mentioned earlier, most of the ships are achieving 200 days at sea per year. The Marine engineers job is to ensure that any repairs or maintenance that cannot be done at sea can be done quickly while the ship is tied up at the quayside, minimising the vessels downtime. The majority of work is being done either in the Naval base or in Cork Dockyard.
Ships are not as maintenance intensive as aircraft, however things are done on a larger scale.

Cheers Goldie that was what I wanted to know.

ODIN
30th January 2006, 13:21
Any idea when the replacement will be confirmed?!?

Goldie fish
30th January 2006, 19:25
How long is this?

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301/lectures/age/ball_of_string.jpg

mutter nutter
30th January 2006, 19:33
How long is this?

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301/lectures/age/ball_of_string.jpg
3-4 metres?















:biggrin:

ODIN
30th January 2006, 19:57
i'd say 6....but thats off topic!!!But we must be talking at least a year and a half to two years

Goldie fish
30th January 2006, 20:23
Emer retires in 2007.

ODIN
30th January 2006, 20:31
well the brass would want to get their fingers out and sort something wouldnt they

Goldie fish
30th January 2006, 20:37
The brass are not the problem. It is them who are pushing this program to the relevant gov departments.

ODIN
30th January 2006, 20:39
my apologies to the brass then. but the relivent departments must get their thumbs out of the neither reagons and get to work on this

moggy
1st February 2006, 16:24
murph
did you hold a diary while onboard eithne

BANDIT
2nd February 2006, 11:14
Blue Max, Check out the map of Sudan. The Probs are in East Sudan, Darfur and Sth Sudan. They are thousands of miles away from a sea access. The roads are shocking so sea deployment is out. I ahve been there. Liberia on the other hand is a small country by the sea I have not been there yet.
Bandit

The Blue Max
3rd February 2006, 22:09
As You said earlier that one of the main problem conflict area was in the main port, "Port Sudan in *enemy territory* "realistically the only real possibility of deployment to the vast majority of mission areas i.e Liberia etc.. will be by sea it would be difficult to see a whole deployment by air (possible limited vechicle transport with other contributing nations assitance) so even if the mission area was land locked it could be shipped to a near by neighbouring country etc.. and either drive or transport the vehicles there etc...

BANDIT
8th February 2006, 09:43
Blue Max,
The conflict areas are well clear of Port Sudan thousands of Miles away. Avcroos por ofetn impassable roads-- so option Airlift . Port Sudan is an area whrer the Khartoum Govt who are one of the defacto protagonists in the conflict arres coud easily slow things down so as`to speak..
Lesson ends

ForkTailedDevil
28th February 2006, 22:42
Mr Goff said all seven of the Project Protector ships would make an important contribution to New Zealand's security and economic interests, as well increasing our capacity to assist in disaster relief in the Pacific.
"They will be operated by the Navy but they will undertake work for a range of government departments as part of a multi-agency approach to protecting our borders," Mr Goff said.
Interesting about what he says is a multi agency approach. Any chance the DCMNR might want to add a few euro to aquisition costs?

Graylion
9th March 2006, 15:52
I've been tring to find the thread about the replacement for the other 2 OPVs - where is it? I would actually suggest doing a package deal with B&V and buy a Meko 100 with the 200 ;)

Goldie fish
9th March 2006, 19:58
What do you base that opinion on?

Graylion
9th March 2006, 22:11
The fact that most commercial enterprises tend to give you better prices when you buy more from them. it would also give the option of mixing and matching MEKO modules between the 2 ships as the mission dictates.

ias
14th March 2006, 17:12
According to this report from the Limerick Post the Minister has confirmed that the military are looking at an MRV so maybe there is a real chance that the NS will get what they want:

"Three ships, LE Aoife, LE Aisling and LE Emer are coming to the end of their 30-year life span and the army is considering a multi-role vessel which would take on a variety of tasks,” the Minister said.

http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=7163&category=Daily-Sun

IAS

Goldie fish
15th March 2006, 10:38
That speech reminded me of Mike Smiths regular rants about the 2 ships he got for the navy every year of his term as minister..

Will willie be doing the same?
It is interesting however that this option has reached the Minister, and that its no longer at planning stage just in Haulbowline.

Pod
18th March 2006, 13:47
"Three ships, LE Aoife, LE Aisling and LE Emer are coming to the end of their 30-year life span and the army is considering a multi-role vessel which would take on a variety of tasks,” the Minister said.

http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=7163&category=Daily-Sun

IAS

ARMY?????

Silver
3rd May 2006, 21:13
Did anybody here read the aricle in the Indo about the proposed plans to build a Multi-Role vessel for the NS ?

It mentioned the MR vessel as used by the Netherlands (too large for the NS?!) and also mentioned the new NZ vessel.

I just had a quick read of it (Tusedays paper). Good to read that there is a real chance of getting such a vessel!

Orion
3rd May 2006, 21:23
Yesterdays Indo .....


"
Navy chiefs set their sights on two new ships


THE Navy is to get two new ships - one of which is likely to be the largest ever operated by the service.

In a radical departure, a new multi-role vessel (MRV) will be able to carry troops and armoured vehicles on UN or EU Battlegroup missions and deliver them to the latest hot spot worldwide. It will also be the most expensive and capable ship ever built for the Naval Service if, as expected, the Government gives the go-ahead later this year.

Two new larger ships are needed within the next three years because 'LE Emer' and 'LE Aoife' will both have reached the end of their 30-year lives.

Two new ships built in the UK for the Naval Service in the last few years cost €50m, but the new ships are expected to be much more costly.

Naval experts are now studying exactly what type of new ships will be needed to support the Defence Forces up to 2040. A report will then be submitted to Defence Minister Willie O'Dea.

Military experts were greatly impressed by the Royal Netherlands Navy ship 'Rotterdam' which was used in Liberia for amphibious landings of Irish troops and armoured vehicles.

Equipped with a hospital and helicopter, it was able to provide excellent accommodation, hot meals and showers for weary Irish troops coming off patrol.

But at 14,000 tons it is too big for Ireland's needs and experts are looking at the much smaller Meko 200 MRV built by Blohm and Voss in Germany which could carry Irish armoured personnel carriers on deck as well as troops.

Another MRV has been bought by the Royal New Zealand Navy and is able to carry 250 troops, 16 Mowag armoured vehicles and trucks as well as helicopters and landing craft.

Ireland has committed a 200-strong company of troops in armoured personnel carriers to the EU Battlegroup concept.

But it has no means of transporting them apart from using commercial carriers or by asking for help from other Battlegroup members, such as Sweden.

The Government is setting up a new humanitarian disaster corps to respond to natural disasters like the tsunami, but there is no means of transporting volunteers or aid independently.

Another argument being made in favour of a larger ship is that Ireland could submit a claim to the UN for sovereign rights over our continental shelf extending far beyond the 200-mile limit which would also have to be patrolled by the Navy.

Mr O'Dea has confirmed the two ships are due for replacement between 2007 and 2009 and expects a submission will be made to him for decision later this year.

Don Lavery

"

Goldie fish
3rd May 2006, 21:30
Methinks don has been reading IMO again...

Orion
3rd May 2006, 21:34
Methinks don has been reading IMO again...


Indeed....but all seeds must first be sown.

:smile:

Goldie fish
3rd May 2006, 21:37
There are other facts in this which have not been discussed here which Mr Lavery has not mentioned. He is basically rehashing an article by Lorna Siggins from a while back.

That said, Good to get it out in public. Lets not get excited until Willie opens the chequebook to place a few deposits..

kiwi1
4th May 2006, 02:16
Hi from NZ just a thought why doesnt the irish naval service ask the RNZN/NZ govt if you can have some of your own naval personnel during sea trials and delivery voyage to downunder.It might help in your future ship requirements and decisions.

Goldie fish
4th May 2006, 02:59
Bladdy good idea that. I know there was a Kiwi on exchange with the Naval service here recently. Surely the gesture could be returned while the MRV is doing sea trials or during her delivery trip from the Netherlands.

How is the MRV progressing?

kiwi1
4th May 2006, 13:45
Hi Goldie latest news is that the MRV is progressing well,the landing craft are readyand the cranes to be installed.Sea trials to start shortly in june/july got to give those dutchy shipbuilders credit they dont muck around.New photos of the MRV alongside at merwede are on the nz navy past present and future website.

ZULU
4th May 2006, 14:09
Go on the Dutch!:smile:

golfjuliet
16th May 2006, 20:03
On replacing the Emer, the Dpt of Defence should consider purchasing a vessel with Deep Diving capabilities considering the amount of up to date equipment the diving team has. It would also eliminate the naval diving team relying on other services to transport the heavy equipment. It would be better to make the diving ship a permenant fixture capable of operating outside the scope of fishery protection.

Goldie fish
16th May 2006, 23:00
Would a multi role vessel not have a capacity to assist in the deep diving activities?

GoneToTheCanner
21st May 2006, 23:18
Hi all
Is this supposed ship expected to be a fleet resupply-at-sea vessel, also? Would it have a helideck? Would it make more sense to convert an existing commercial vessel rather than build from new?
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
21st May 2006, 23:26
A rebuild would cost as much in the long term as a newbuild. Plus the rebuild would not have the same lifespan as a newbuild.

Define resupply? If you mean refuel, its not really necessary as our ships have much longer legs than "proper " warships that normally operate as part of a fleet group, and need regular refuelling for their fuel intensive gas turbines.
As for stores, any naval vessel is capable of transferring stores to other ships.

Helipads are a must have, even if you do not have the aircraft. There is always the chance that you would be working in a mission where another nation is providing Helis(In Liberia for example the Ukranians do it).

B Inman
22nd May 2006, 00:42
In UNIFIL every Batt had a number of helipads.

NORAIR and later ITALAIR ( 6 x Bell 212 (Huey) were based in Naqoura on thecoast

The only contingent I ever saw re supply by Air was FrenchBatt.

Using UN Helis and French ships.


Beruit and Haifa (the nearest viable ports) were many Kms away over very bumpy roads to the UNIFIL AO.


Perhaps in the future INS ships will have helipads.

ias
30th May 2006, 15:32
I see according to Janes that the two Absalon Class ships for the Danish Navy will cost US$413 million in total. Accepting that they are far better equipped than anything that the NS are likely to get, but still it shows that these type of vessels don't come cheap.

IAS

Aidan
30th May 2006, 16:43
The Absalons would be ideal, but they're very big (over 6000t). Unlikely any Irish vessel would be that big.

Fit aside, that figure is probably high also because of the fact that all of the development costs would be included. Were someone to buy 'off the shelf' as it were, the costs would be lower. For a ship of any reasonable size (>4000t), you'd still probably be looking at a figure of €100m though (as opposed to ~€160m for the Absalon). And you wouldn't build the hull in Denmark.

ias
30th May 2006, 22:18
Maybe in Belfast?

IAS

Goldie fish
30th May 2006, 22:23
Unless you know a good welder in Belfast I doubt it. H&W are no longer in the business of shipbuilding, and were never cheap when they did. Best bet is to build the Hull in some high output dockyard in Holland or Poland, the superstructure in Germany, and Mate the whole lot together on the Elbe..

Gasplug
31st May 2006, 01:09
what about the place in scotland bulding for the Rn now?

the ones that ****ed the boat up when they launched it!

Goldie fish
31st May 2006, 09:10
Boat? The Navy don't need more boats, it needs more SHIPS.
Like H&W, few of the UK dockyards are able to build with the same speed or quality as the Polish, Duch or (Former east)German yards.

Gasplug
31st May 2006, 10:33
ok sorry ship.......

GoneToTheCanner
31st May 2006, 10:51
Hi ias
Have you that much faith in the Loyal Orange Order of Shipwrights? Like Goldie said, get the East Europeans to churn one out and fit it up. How about getting an ocean-going tug/supply vessel instead? Goldie, does the navy practise refuelling at sea? If one was engaged in a SAR far out into the Atlantic, it would be nice to top up in situ rather than running for Killybegs or someplace like that.
regards
GttC

Aidan
31st May 2006, 11:24
Goldie is right, build the hull in Poland (or Romania) and complete the fit in Germany or Norway, the entire project managed by a private sector contractor from the first steel cut to the delivery to, and formal acceptance as 'fit for purpose' by the NS.

More to the point, the size of the dry dock in Rushbrook should not be the limiting factor in terms of size.

Goldie fish
31st May 2006, 19:21
The NS do not do refuelling at sea because they don't need to. Because they lack fuel intensive gas turbines,and do most of their operations at a relatively low speed, they have a much longer endurance than larger vessels.

Goldie fish
1st June 2006, 00:11
Poland it is then. Them lot will work an 80 hour week for less than minimum wage here.

ODIN
1st June 2006, 15:55
As many Irish employers discovered after the EU enlargement!!!

Goldie fish
1st June 2006, 18:24
They also have the highest unemployment in the EU.

Dogwatch
20th June 2006, 13:44
This is the largest class of ship in the RSN and they belong to the 191 Squadron. They were designed and built locally to replace the old County-Class LSTs. She is fitted with modern technologies, a well dock, flight deck and 4 Fast Craft Equipment Personnel (FCEP) for manpower efficiency.

Length
141 meters

Beam
21 meters

Displacement
6,000 tonnes

Speed
15 to 20 knots

Crew
65 officers & men

Weapons
76 mm OTO MELARA SRGM
MISTRAL Surface-to-Air Missiles
CIS Machine Guns


'This is what Singapore has built as their version of a Blue/Green Ship'.

mutter nutter
20th June 2006, 13:47
she's pretty sizable, for what the NS would want isn't she?

Goldie fish
20th June 2006, 18:00
RSS Endurance is the vessel,that's classified as an LST.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/navy/images/pix_sub/ship_lst.jpg

Not quite blue/green. However they did play a large part in the Tsunami relief operation.

ocean
20th June 2006, 23:05
Ultimately I think its going to be the weather that will drive what the Irish Navy get. There are loads of reports already showing the waves are getting bigger off the west coast and there is evidence that this will continue into the coming decade - so if the Naval lads and girls are to remain safe in their workplace at sea they will need a or some larger ship(s) if they are to stay offshore - otherwise they will have to run ahead of the weather every time there is a storm.

Goldie fish
20th June 2006, 23:37
Waves etc. Isnt the west coast of scotland the north coast of ireland?


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=506312006


Sun 2 Apr 2006

'Perfect wave' breaks off Scotland
TOBY MCDONALD AND ARTHUR MACMILLAN

IT IS straight out of a nightmare: a wave almost 100ft high bears down on your helpless vessel miles from the safety of the shore.

But that is exactly what a team of British scientists faced while conducting experiments off the west coast of Scotland.

And the wave they measured - at just over 95ft from crest to trough - was the highest-ever scientifically recorded on the planet.

The monster wave equal to the height of a 10-storey building, battered a team from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) as they sailed near the tiny island of Rockall, in the Outer Hebrides.

The real-life 'Perfect Storm' occurred in February 2000, but the details have only now emerged in a scientific paper for the Geophysical Research Letters Journal.

Dr Naomi Holliday, a senior scientist with the NOC, has described the extent of the tempestuous storm, which occurred on February 8, 2000 - 175 miles west of the mainland.

Holliday said: "It was pretty horrendous. We were literally thrown out of our bunks. It's really quite hard to imagine if you haven't been in a ship that's moving around that much.

"I've seen the The Perfect Storm. It was a great film, I really enjoyed it. I just never thought I would live it."

Higher waves have been estimated since, including 98ft in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and the October 1991 'Perfect Storm' off the north-eastern US, depicted in the movie starring George Clooney.

The significance of the Rockall event is that the height of the sea was measured by an onboard wave recorder, making it officially the biggest ever.

The NOC's boat, RSS Discovery, a successor vessel to Captain Robert Falcon Scott's ship, was stranded by storms for five days, with waves averaging 61ft. Wind speeds hit the severe gale category.

The 295ft-long vessel was in the area to conduct experiments on global warming, but the onboard instruments were also capable of accurately measuring wave height.

Holliday said: "Very strong winds are common here all the year round. The point is that all of these previously high measured waves were under hurricane conditions - really extreme conditions, but our big waves weren't. These are not especially unusual conditions. It wasn't just a one-off."

The ship's officers had to point the ship's bow into the wind - but with waves rolling from more than one direction navigation remained difficult.

The engines continually operated at full speed to keep the ship in position. And at night it was especially difficult because the crew could not see the waves coming.

Holliday said: "We had five days when we were hove to and not able to turn around and run for cover. But there was a period of 36 hours when it was particularly bad. It wasn't something I would care to repeat. It was pretty mad.

"It was a huge challenge for them to keep the ship safe. One mistake and it could have been swamped."

She said American scientists monitoring hurricane-related wave heights had used two sources to reach their record figures - a combination of unmanned buoys and data gathered later.

"They took the wave measurements by the buoy and compared them to the wave estimates from the model and drew some conclusions about the maximum wave heights they might have had," said Holliday.

"The difference is, ours are directly recorded. The only ones that are provable are ours."

Colin Griffiths, of the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences in Dunstaffnage, Oban, was also on the expedition.

He said last night: "I spend a lot of time at sea and the weather was relentlessly extreme. It is only because we had wave recorders that we now know about the 95ft wave.

"The fact that we measured it will mean that it can be accepted by a scientific journal.

"We were thrown out of our bunks and sleeping became very difficult. I had a chair land on top of me in my bunk.

"It's really quite hard to imagine if you haven't been in a ship that is moving around that much. But up on the bridge it must have been far, far worse.

"I have a tremendous amount of respect for the crew and the officers of the ship who managed to keep us all alive."

The researchers believe the discovery of such a huge wave amid relatively low, non-hurricane wind speeds could have implications for oil exploration on Britain's Atlantic shelf.

Holliday believes the extreme waves were caused by a resonance effect.

It occurs when the wind velocity matches the speed of the waves, resulting in wind continually feeding energy into the sea.

She said: "Energy was continually being put into this wave group. This was pretty close to the maximum height that the waves could have got to. This is the edge of the Atlantic Shelf where a lot of exploration is going on.

"These new figures are going to be quite significant. Engineers who are trying to design ships and oil platforms will have to think again."

Dogwatch
20th June 2006, 23:45
The research ship mentioned is due in Cork in July.

Aidan
21st June 2006, 09:11
Friend of mine did a Masters on wave cycles off the west coast of Ireland (Mayo to be precise). The results were interesting - even in the international literature, the area is recognised as long having the highest wave energy on the planet. And there is plenty of empirical evidence that it is getting worse, mainly due to the changing structure of storm cycles in the Atlantic.

And the natives are trying to insist that someone builds a gas rig out there in 350m of water ...

ocean
24th June 2006, 16:33
When the Canadian Sub had trouble in 2004 off the northwest coast the Roisin was damaged by the weather preventing her from doing her job. There is talk of more sea area coming under Ireland's control and this I presume will mean more operations further offshore so running in ahead of bad weather won't be as easy. The NZ ship is large as is the Danish Absalon class. I hope the Navy have the sense to get somthing that is big enough to do the job further offshore.

sledger
24th June 2006, 18:36
When the Canadian Sub had trouble in 2004 off the northwest coast the Roisin was damaged by the weather preventing her from doing her job. There is talk of more sea area coming under Ireland's control and this I presume will mean more operations further offshore so running in ahead of bad weather won't be as easy. The NZ ship is large as is the Danish Absalon class. I hope the Navy have the sense to get somthing that is big enough to do the job further offshore.

Its not the sense of the Naval Service I'd be concerned about but what the government will let them have. :mad:

ocean
25th June 2006, 00:41
Its hard to know who makes the decisions - will it be the Government or the Department of the Defence - my sense is it will be the Department of Defence!

Goldie fish
25th June 2006, 01:06
The government only rubberstamps the decisions of the department of defence.

ocean
25th June 2006, 01:18
Goldie I agree -capital items like Naval ships are as much tools for other goverment departments, justice, marine, environment, foreign affairs, enterprise and I think this was a Government decision in the White Paper - to have one department decide on the final profile seems to run contrary to the aspiration for joined up governance. Is their some inter departmental decision making framework that can consider what new state (Naval) ships should look like or is the decision made completly in Defence - if it is the latter then I don't think the taxpayer is neccessarily getting value for money?

Goldie fish
25th June 2006, 11:42
The replacement programme for Naval Service vessels is at present under consideration. As a general guide, the objective would be to replace vessels after approximately 30 years service. On this basis, two vessels would be due for replacement in the period 2007 to 2009.
From the ministers speech in the Dail last week.

Has Willie got his maths wrong there or do they plan to keep one of the p20 class in service past the 30 year mark? I thought Aisling was a 1979 build? Are they planning to replace only 2 of the 3 ships?

Farel'
25th June 2006, 18:57
If the Irish area of jurisdiction is going to nearly double and some of the states waters will be over six hundred miles off the coast the defence forces really can't afford to hang around with the replacement program. It is in times of economic growth that governments invest in major capital programmes like ship replacement -

Dogwatch
26th June 2006, 12:48
Two Irish Navy officers over in the Netherlands at present viewing the Kiwi ship.

Dogwatch
26th June 2006, 22:02
The DML version of OPV(H) which they put in to bid against the VT Stretched River Class, but weren't successful. DML is the parent company that own Appledore Shipbuilders, so if the Blue Green ship doesn't go ahead, a stretched LPV (like this) is supposed to be the option.

Apologies for the size of the pic.

Dogwatch
27th June 2006, 15:01
The Brunei Navy Corvette (built by Yarrows, UK) fitted with 76mm OTO Melara & Radamec 2500 FCS, which is supposedly what the NS are looking to acquire for the new ship. Also photos of the 2500 Optronic Head and the 1500 Optronic Head (fitted on the LPV's & CPV's).

Farel'
6th July 2006, 01:14
everybody remembers the hole in the flare on the Roisin..who remembers the huge dent in the gun deck flare on the Aisling...about '86 I think...

Hp - dead right and thats the problem - somtimes the navy can't do their job now because their ships are too small - we are about to get territory which is almost 10 times the size of the state and already from time to time the navy can't do their business in the waters we already we own - where are we going unless the navy get off their arse and build a decent ship - of at leats 130 metres!

Dogwatch
12th July 2006, 00:27
The Schelde Shipping OPV that was built for South Africa

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/pics/opvge003.jpg

http://www.sturrockshipping.co.za/upload/image/image_name/34_SarahBartmann1.gif

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/164511.jpg

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/7952.jpg

moggs77
17th July 2006, 16:53
The thing you have to consider if the navy gets these bigger ships is where are they going to berth them and who is going to maintain them presuming they are going to have small crews?? I think a big ship is highly unlikely because it will require a new and/or greatly reformed dockyard..

Goldie fish
17th July 2006, 19:38
Read back. Especially the bit about the west wall of the basin now belonging to the NS?. WHen the Irish Steel cleanup is complete you'll have a deeper longer section of quay with plenty of space alongside.

moggs77
18th July 2006, 20:31
I have read back and see no mention of the support required for a bigger ship. As regards berthage the west wall will be sold to the highest bidder which i doubt very much will be the dept of defence. No money spent on new wall no room for bigger ship - no money spent on bigger ships - no more support facilities required - win win if your job is to save money for the government i.e Dept of Defence!!!
I'd bet any amount of money u want the new ships will be very similar to Niamh and Roisin maybe a tiny bit bigger just to shut the navy up.

Goldie fish
18th July 2006, 20:47
The west wall is property of the NS. I have said so here many times before. Frank agrees with me.

moggs77
18th July 2006, 21:11
Well same man is very capable of saying something but meaning something else. I might be wrong but i'm 99.9% sure the navy is a long way from owning the west wall. you have pictures showing civilain vessels tied to the west wall. If the navy owns it what are they doing there???

Goldie fish
18th July 2006, 21:15
Ask yourself who owns the "civilian vessels"


http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showpost.php?p=79226&postcount=29

moggs77
18th July 2006, 21:21
Ask yourself who owns the "civilian vessels"


http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showpost.php?p=79226&postcount=29

Marine Transport ?? (a private company)

moggs77
18th July 2006, 22:15
Back in the older days of the steel there were many larger vessels using the berth at that side. Consider the place was designed to take a WW1 cruiser of around 14,000 to 19,000 tons and the fact that the basin is man made and has a concrete bottom..if it was dreged properly..I couldn't see this as being a major problem.

Its just due to lack of use that the facilities have fallen into such a poor state.

once upon atime there was a dry dock there as well..so anything is possible.

my point isn't that the west wall can't take big vessels but my i doubt there is a will amongest the dod to buy a bigger vessel, and a way to avoid it is to let the west wall be sold off, getting the west wall and bigger vessels is really allowing the navy to expand greatly and is the will there in the dod or the army for that matter??. there is a hell of a lot of politics that goes on in these things and the earlier mentioned person is not the best politician in the world.

Goldie fish
18th July 2006, 22:17
Point to note: The dockside crane that used to unload scrap is gone. See Steel mill thread for further details

Stoker
19th July 2006, 00:10
I do not have any details on the cranes that the Steel used but they were probably not suitable for N.S. use anyway.Cargo handling cranes are designed to handle cargo quickly shipyard cranes are designed to allow slow precise movement and have "inching controls".If you ever had the misfortune to have a dockside crane attempt lowering a piece of heavy equipment through a narrow hatch, and seen the speed at which the usuall crowd of banksmen sped for safety, it's not quickly forgotten , mind you it was in Bombay!

Goldie fish
19th July 2006, 00:20
They had a crane similar to a container handling crane, but with a magnet, for scrap.
Photos elsewhere.

andy
1st August 2006, 23:42
Maybe in Belfast?

IAS

Excellent Idea !

Dogwatch
2nd August 2006, 23:51
A possible contender for the next ship, if the MRV doesn't go ahead?

http://www.masamarine.com/images/SA-85m_big.jpg

Which is very similar to the Kiwi OPV design shown below

http://www.masamarine.com/images/P85Protector.jpg

Aker Yards Marine has recently completed the design of a new and innovative Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) for the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN). Two of these 85-meter vessels are now under construction at Tenix Defence Marine Division’s Williamstown shipyard near Melbourne, Australia. The ships are scheduled for delivery in 2007. OPVs offer an alternative to employing higher priced frigates and destroyers to perform duties such as illegal immigration surveillance, drug interdiction, searchand rescue, fisheries and environment enforcement and countering terrorism.
AYM has worked closely with Tenix and the New Zealand Ministry of Defence (NZMoD) to develop a design that fully meets the requirements of the Contract. The ship is designed to have excellent seakeeping qualities, 6,000 nautical mile endurance, and an icestrengthened hull, which enables the vessel to patrol the Ross Sea near Antarctica in the summer months. Replicating the RNZN ANZAC frigates, the vessel carries complete helicopter facilities including flight deck with night landing capability, basic maintenance hangar and refueling facility.

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

& here's the Chilean OPV that they have designed..........very similar to LPV's

http://www.akermarine.com/images/P80-1.jpg

& the South African CG vessel which was recently built (Sarah Baartman, which I posted pics of recently).

http://www.akermarine.com/images/P85-1.jpg

Dogwatch
3rd August 2006, 00:12
Or here's the Scottish fishery Protection Agency OPV

http://www.fergusonshipbuilders.com/images/minna_th.jpg


http://www.sfpa.gov.uk/images/Jura.200.jpg

Goldie fish
3rd August 2006, 01:20
The 85m OPV is similar to the concept behind the RN River class, VT's EEZ protection vessel.

Mauritius Coast guard also use the LPV with helideck design.
http://www.masamarine.com/images/mauritius_L.jpg

Its good to see there are lots of options available.

The SFPA ships are quite small though, similar in shape and size to the trawlers they seek. Last I heard, one of Jockeys offspring was crew aboard one of their ships.

Dogwatch
3rd August 2006, 18:51
How about this for a cheap MRV??

http://www.masamarine.com/images/aquiles2.jpg

http://www.armada.cl/galeria/unidades/unidades/FOTO-00634.jpg

It's a Chilean Navy Logistics Vessel, designed by Akver also.

Dogwatch
3rd August 2006, 19:36
This is a shot of the Chilean navy OPV that ASMAR are going to build for the Navy... slightly different from the original design. I like the manner in which the boat launch area can be sealed off and protected from the elements. this will help with the maintenance and life of the single point davits.

http://www.armada.cl/p4_ingles/site/artic/20050706/imag/FOTO420050706112321.jpg

"The Talcahuano-based ASMAR plant will build two Maritime Zone Patrol vessels for the Navy. These ships will enable Chile’s maritime authority to exercise a more efficient control over the nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone."

Dogwatch
3rd August 2006, 20:46
Here's an example of one of five hulls that the Norwegian Coastguard have built. They use two crews, 3 weeks on 3 weeks off, ship returns after 3 weeks, crews handover & straight back out to sea.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_OPV_KV_Nornen_Mini-OPV_lg.jpg

On November 24, 2004 the Norwegian Coast Guard signed contract for five new patrol vessel of the ST-610 type. They will be delivered 12-14 months after the contract was signed. The vessels will be leased for 15 years. These purpose-built vessels will replace the five oldest vessels in the inner coast guard (No:indre kystvakt). They will provide significantly improved capabilities in all regards compared to the vessels they will replace. This includes seaworthiness (they are larger), towing capacity, fire fighting and environmental protection (collecting oil spills). The aft deck is for winch only.

Specifications:
Length: 47.2m
Beam: 10.3m
Displacement: 700 tonnes
Speed: 17 knots
Bollard pull: 20+ ton
Engines: 2000kW (diesel electric), 1 bow thruster
Gun: Probably 20mm

Or a bigger version:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/KV_Svalbard1.jpg

Specifications:
Displacement: 6500 tonnes
Length: 103.7 m (340.2ft) overall
89 m (292 ft) waterline
Beam: 19.1 m (62.6 ft)
Height: 8.3 m (27.2 ft)
Draft: 6.5 m (21.3 ft)
Power: 4 x 3390 kW BRG-8 diesel generators
Propulsion: 2 x 5 MW Azipod electric motors
Speed: 17.5 kn
Range: ?
Complement: ?
Aircraft: Capacity for two helicopters;
one Lynx carried initially, NH90 from 2007
Radar: EADS TRS-3D /16 ES with IFF
Gun: Bofors 57 mm, 12.7 mm
Cost: 575 million NOK (80 million USD), radar and helicopter not included

http://www.marinetalk.com/images/02-03-18/kv.jpg

Goldie fish
3rd August 2006, 21:02
Crewed along the same lines as the Rig support ships so? How big is the crew? Many countries coastguards and navies have bought or leased vessels such as this in recent years as Maritime Coastguard services in europe become more organised.

Dogwatch
3rd August 2006, 21:12
http://www.oilpubs.com/_ni/Harstad.jpg

This appears to be somewhat in between the two previous versions

Specifications:
Displacement: 3121 ton
Length: 83m
Beam: 15.5m
Max speed: 18.4kn
Crew: 26
Engines: Two Rolls-Royce Marine, 4000Kw each
Propellers: Two; one swing up thruster 883Kw
Crane: 15m/5 ton
Built to operate the Nato Submarine Rescue System
Gun: Bofors 40mm
In service from January 2005

KV Harstad is built as multipurpose-vessel, but optimised for emergency towing of large oil tankers (up to 200 000dwt), oil spill clean-up and fire fighting. The most common duty will be fishery inspection and search and rescue in Norways large exclusive economic zone. The steadily increasing traffic of large oil tankers along the Norwegian coast explains the need for this type of vessel.

Some towing capability!

Dogwatch
4th August 2006, 22:26
I give full credit to all who submit these vessels as possible contenders..at least we have moved on from the luantics who wanted Aegis class destroyers and mad looking men of war..I get the feeling it will happen..and its going to be B+h Built...but not before a general election.


B&H.. you mean Blohm & Voss?

Don't think the PDF are willing to spend that much money on the largest singular capital expenditure in the DOD budget since the foundation of the State for the NS (circa €100 - 250 million for an MRV). We are far to small in comparison to the rest of the DF & seen as a threat by many to other arms of the PDF.

Goldie fish
4th August 2006, 22:34
Are we back to the days of hoping for the scraps from the table of the DF budget? This attitude prevailed in the 60s and 70s and almost brought the NS to a premature end. Fact is there can be saving made in other areas as a direct result of having an MRV. How much did it cost to ship the Vehicles and equipment to Liberia for example?

The Money is there. The rest of the DF budget could be considered "what if" equipment. Unlikely to be used in anger. Naval vessels of this type will be used. The value the Govt have got from the current fleet is example of this. Their penny pinching investment in the current fleet has served them well. Why can't they see that the more they invest, the better use will be made of the investment?

Dogwatch
4th August 2006, 22:42
Are we back to the days of hoping for the scraps from the table of the DF budget? This attitude prevailed in the 60s and 70s and almost brought the NS to a premature end. Fact is there can be saving made in other areas as a direct result of having an MRV. How much did it cost to ship the Vehicles and equipment to Liberia for example?

The Money is there. The rest of the DF budget could be considered "what if" equipment. Unlikely to be used in anger. Naval vessels of this type will be used. The value the Govt have got from the current fleet is example of this. Their penny pinching investment in the current fleet has served them well. Why can't they see that the more they invest, the better use will be made of the investment?

Absolutely, but that is not what some dept's think!

Laners
5th August 2006, 23:21
Lets not forget that the Naval Service actualy generates income for the State in the form of fines from ilegal fishing by trawlers , maybe the money should go back into the Naval Service . Do I see a new incentive for the members of the Service . Just a crazy thought .

Goldie fish
6th August 2006, 15:16
It would be the same as the Gardai looking for the money they gather for the government in the way of traffic fines back to invest in their own vehicles.

moggs77
8th August 2006, 16:07
It would be the same as the Gardai looking for the money they gather for the government in the way of traffic fines back to invest in their own vehicles.
The money collected from fines wouldn't pay for a lot most fines are just a couple of thousand a few less and the very rare one in the tens thousands. At about twenty to thirty arrests a year that wouldn't go far. (not all arrests result in convictions and fines)

Dogwatch
8th August 2006, 20:55
http://www.ekels.nl/nieuws/gfx/OPV.jpg

A photo of the South African Fishery Protection Vessel underway.

Goldie fish
8th August 2006, 21:18
Looks a lot like one of those Oil Rig supply ship/ anchor handling tugs in hull form. Does it have any sort of bollard pull capacity?

Dogwatch
9th August 2006, 23:56
Looks a lot like one of those Oil Rig supply ship/ anchor handling tugs in hull form. Does it have any sort of bollard pull capacity?


It is capable of towing, but as yet I have found any info on her bollard pull.

The attached pic, is the stretched version (95m) of the 'Sarah Baartman' (83m) from Damen yards. No example built yet

http://www.damen.nl/Upload/Resized/Products/_thumbs/thn4_mID_6390_cID_5401_OPV.jpg

Here is the 68m version

http://www.damen.nl/Upload/Resized/Products/_thumbs/thn4_mID_6390_cID_5401_555051_0001.jpg

ias
25th August 2006, 17:22
A question that someone may be able to help me with?

I was reading an interview in August issue of Jane's IDR with the CEO of Schelde Shipbuilding, he was talking about a new large OPV they planned, approx. 2800 tonnes, and he used a quote that I read in An Cosantoir "steel is relatively cheap and the air inside it is free"! Is this a nautical term or just a coincidence that a Naval Service officer would use the same quote?

He also mentioned in the same quote, something that is probably pretty obvious to you naval types, but to this landlubber was interesting "longer vessels can smaller engines" for the same performance and presumably lower cost.

Just thought I'd ask.

IAS

Pod
25th August 2006, 18:41
Is this a viable contender?
http://212.72.173.53/media/4f9c3ac4236ca4e786fad44a137ae84e.jpg
http://212.72.173.53/en/page.php?page_id=PG-96

Sea Toby
25th August 2006, 18:44
Obviously a longer vessel of steel costs more than a shorter vessel of steel. Having said that, similar sized warships costs differently. For example a smaller warship with more weapons can cost much more than a larger warship without many weapons. For example, an Irish Roisin class 78 meter OPV cost around 30 million Euros, whereas an Israeli Saar V class 85 meter corvette cost 200 million Euros. Why the 170 million Euros difference between the Israeli corvette and the Irish OPV? Its not the price of steel. The steel for the Irish ship maybe 15 million Euros whereas the steel for the Israeli ship maybe 16 million Euros. The air inside a steel ship is free!

The longer ship with the same beam and engine plant will go faster than a shorter ship. Therefore, logic maintains a shorter ship with the same beam will need a more powerful engine plant to match the speed of the larger ship. Obviously a more powerful engine plant costs more than a less powerful engine plant.

Dogwatch
26th August 2006, 12:08
Why the 170 million Euros difference between the Israeli corvette and the Irish OPV? Its not the price of steel.

The extra cost are the weapons and communications systems & the fact that the Saar is built to military standards, whereas the LPV's are built to civilian standards.

Pod
26th August 2006, 22:57
Post 206 should read REALISTIC contender
and BTW, crew is 26 with room for up to 44 "passangers"

Marius
27th August 2006, 18:03
A question that someone may be able to help me with?

He also mentioned in the same quote, something that is probably pretty obvious to you naval types, but to this landlubber was interesting "longer vessels can smaller engines" for the same performance and presumably lower cost.

IAS

I think he is referring to the fact that a ship's speed is a function not only of its engine power but also of its hull shape and waterline length.

For example a ship like EITHNE could be fitted with much bigger engines and not achieve an increase in speed but the same engines might drive her along a few knots faster if her length overall was increased?

I heard a story that she is slower than she might have been because the instruction from the Department at the time, once they accepted a helo-capable ship was required, was that she should be the smallest size possible. This bean counting may have cost her several knots of forward speed for little or no saving.

I hope the approach improves for any new ship build.

Marius
28th August 2006, 19:26
In what way is my comment on the EITHNE flawed? I pretty much say that the smallest package (as required by DOD) was not the most efficient (i.e. slower)... Don't we agree on this? I would love to know if you think that that rumour is true, because if so, it is nearly inexcusable meddling in the design of the ship!

Pod
6th September 2006, 21:13
Is there a definitive deadline for a decision on the replacement or will it go on the end of a very long finger ?

Goldie fish
6th September 2006, 21:17
No. Definite Deadline. Emer to be replaced 2008, Aoife 2009, and Aisling 2010. Its one of the points of the white paper that the Government are tied to.

mutter nutter
7th September 2006, 14:09
I posted this in the news section aswell, but I thought it might be ok for here too,

€100m vessel to boost navy strength


THE ship may have finally come in for the Department of Defence.

Yesterday Minister Willie O'Dea revealed his department is negotiating for one of the biggest ship replacement programmes in Irish naval history.

Mr O'Dea confirmed that the department is preparing for the decommissioning of three vessels over the next few years - and the possible introduction into the Irish fleet of a €100m multi-mission vessel that will dwarf existing patrol ships on the water.

He was speaking at Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork at a cadet commissioning ceremony.

He said that the number of ships ordered and their size will be dependent on negotiations with the Department of Finance in the coming months.

"They will come to the end of a 30-year lifespan which we take as the guideline for the life of a vessel," he said.

"We are committed to an eight-ship flotilla and we are committed to replacing ships."

Over the next three to four years, the Naval Service will see the LE Emer, LE Aoife and LE Aisling reach the end of their expected 30 year service lives. The Navy has already seen the introduction of two new ships in recent years - the LE Roisin and LE Niamh - at a cost of €50m. But the forthcoming acquisition programme will be the most expensive in Irish naval history.

Our picture shows a member of the Southern Brigade Army Band who took a turn under a hot sun during the 44th Naval Cadet Class. Cadets on parade after their commissioning ceremony at the Haulbowline Naval Base.

Bitter Boy
7th September 2006, 17:45
What will a €100 m buy? A 100 m version of the Niamh / Roisin or a proper 'Blue / Green' ship?

Pod
7th September 2006, 18:54
I cant help but be just a little cynical on this.
Replace Emer with the MPV @ !00 million and then have no money to replace the other two in the timeframe set out, but they wouldn't dream of doing something like that would they?

Goldie fish
7th September 2006, 19:03
Read the item again. 3 ships to be replaced. One of the replacements will cost an estimated €100m. The Dept are Committed to replacing the three older vessels.

The €100m only refers to one of the vessels, not all. 100million buys you a lot of ship. Roisin/Niamh only cost €25m in 1999/2001.

yooklid
7th September 2006, 19:33
Read the item again. 3 ships to be replaced. One of the replacements will cost an estimated €100m. The Dept are Committed to replacing the three older vessels.

The €100m only refers to one of the vessels, not all. 100million buys you a lot of ship. Roisin/Niamh only cost €25m in 1999/2001.

Sweet - so we'll have 4 P51 class, 1 P61 class, 1 P31 class and 2 P41?

Would 7 P51 and 1 P61 be the ultimate goal? Desired? Preferable?

andy
7th September 2006, 19:33
so what will €100 millon bucks buy you these days ?

Im glad we wont have to ask the dutch for their navy capability

Goldie fish
7th September 2006, 19:52
Sweet - so we'll have 4 P51 class, 1 P61 class, 1 P31 class and 2 P41?

Would 7 P51 and 1 P61 be the ultimate goal? Desired? Preferable?

8 ships is what the 2000 White Paper set the Fleet at. However, that Paper lapses in 2010, coenciding with the departure from service of the Last of the P20s. Nothing to say that the 2010 White Paper wouldn't set the Fleet at 12 ships. Requirements have changed since 2000, and the NS have demonstrated what they are capable of when given the correct tools for the Job.

Goldie fish
7th September 2006, 19:53
so what will €100 millon bucks buy you these days ?

Im glad we wont have to ask the dutch for their navy capability

I have no Idea what you are trying to say in that post. If I don't, then I'm fairly sure nobody else has a clue either. Would you care to explain your thinking better please in a logical manner?

Orion
7th September 2006, 20:37
I have no Idea what you are trying to say in that post. If I don't, then I'm fairly sure nobody else has a clue either. Would you care to explain your thinking better please in a logical manner?


Could this be a reference to Dutch Naval support at the start of the Liberia deployment. Didn't they have a medevac heli available to recover any casualties to their ship? This was before shore based facilities were established?

ODIN
7th September 2006, 22:43
Exciting times for the NS. Hope the right calls are made

Bitter Boy
8th September 2006, 11:09
The question is will Brian Cowan sanction €100 M for a 'Warship' just before an election when he could spend that €100 M on cheap gimmicks to win votes.

pym
8th September 2006, 18:17
Warship? What warship? Humanitarian support vessel.

mutter nutter
8th September 2006, 18:23
Warship? What warship? Humanitarian support vessel.
YES!!, and for whale consevation work aswell, but not a "warship" what ever that is we'll even call it LE huggytree, if we get it:redface:

DeV
8th September 2006, 19:05
Read the text of the Minister's speech, which has been posted in the news thread. It makes no mention of the 30 year lifespan of vessels or NEW vessels, merely 8 vessel navy!

mutter nutter
8th September 2006, 19:07
Read the text of the Minister's speech, which has been posted in the news thread. It makes no mention of the 30 year lifespan of vessels or NEW vessels, merely 8 vessel navy!

no one said he mentioned either during his speach, just that he said it at Haulbowline.



Yesterday Minister Willie O'Dea revealed his department is negotiating for one of the biggest ship replacement programmes in Irish naval history.

Mr O'Dea confirmed that the department is preparing for the decommissioning of three vessels over the next few years - and the possible introduction into the Irish fleet of a €100m multi-mission vessel that will dwarf existing patrol ships on the water.

He was speaking at Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork at a cadet commissioning ceremony.

I don't know, you saying they made up stuff he said?

andy
8th September 2006, 19:18
Could this be a reference to Dutch Naval support at the start of the Liberia deployment. Didn't they have a medevac heli available to recover any casualties to their ship? This was before shore based facilities were established?


Exactly it!

DeV
8th September 2006, 19:28
He didn't say it in the speech, if it was seriously on the table (hopefully it is, and before the next election) he probably would have referred to it in the speech. If he doesn't say it in public (ie in from of the audience at the commissioning ceremony) he isn't committing himself to anything.

Goldie fish
8th September 2006, 19:47
There is the official speech, and there is the conversations with the media after. Its what he said, unless he issues a disclaimer.

mutter nutter
8th September 2006, 19:57
how much did the Kiwi MRV cost?, we probably wouldn't need the landing craft, so that may take the price down

Goldie fish
8th September 2006, 20:05
The Kiwi MRV would be unsuitable for our requirements, unless there were major modifications.




Keep in mind New Zealand capped the MRV to $100 million US. If the IPVs cost around $15 million US and the OPVs cost around $45 million US, 100+60+90=$250 million US for all seven ships.



$100,000,000.00 US = €78,894,697.14 EUR

Sea Toby
9th September 2006, 06:01
As I read between the lines the MEKO 200 MRV was too small, only 200 lane meters of vehicle space to meet the army's requirements. The New Zealand MRV has 403 lane meters of vehicle space, and this ferry type of vessel can be made larger. For example, the new Interisland ferry Kaitaki is 30 meters longer than the NZ MRV with the same beam.

Merwede(Tenix) won the bid for the NZ MRV over Damen Schelde(ADI) smallest Enforcer design, similar to the Dutch Navy's Rotterdam. At the smallest beam, there are three or four Enforcer designs with different lenghts. So it appears Ireland is interested in either one of these vessels for sealift purposes.

As I read the speech, it appears Ireland will be following New Zealand with one large sealift/patrol/training ship and two OPVs to replace the first three OPVs being discarded. I would fully support acquiring a proper MRV/LPD vessel. When not in use as a sealift vessel, it can be used for patrol duties if necessary.

Bitter Boy
9th September 2006, 09:28
There is the official speech, and there is the conversations with the media after. Its what he said, unless he issues a disclaimer.

He did issue a disclaimer. ' ..dependent on negotations with the Department of Finance..'. Therefore Willy can say .'Sure lads, I was all for it, but Crusher Cowan wasn't having any of it'

Sorry if I sound cinical, but I am rather bitter.

Goldie fish
9th September 2006, 10:39
I have to wonder how Important Lane Metres are to the Irish NS. From what I gather the ability to Carry TEUs, such as the armys Mobile Field Hospital, is more Important, in addition to a certain amount of Vehicles. The Time this Vessel could spend engaged in its sealift Duties, compared to its Normal Patrol duties would mean that its "Lane metres" would for the majority of time, not be in use.

However the MEKO idea of having a Large deck space would make more sense to me, than Internal volume. As an SAR on scene Co-ordination vessel for example. Eithnes Helideck would have been useful if it could safely land a Seaking size heli. It opens up so many more options. The C3 ability is another important asset. As it is Most Irish Naval vessels maintain a communications suite that assists it in becoming an On Scene Controller.

However a task that could be undertaken if suitably equipped would be evacuating the Island communities in times of inclement weather. Often the Problem is that the ferry cannot dock safely at the appropriate harbour. Navy RIBs are particularly suitable for landing safely where larger boats can not.

I am not claiming to Know everything about the requirements but Its obvious that Naval HQ know what they want already from such a ship. It may not be the same as the NZ requirements, but the Efforts made by Numerous Shipyards to design a suitable ship for them, provides Ireland with a number of "off the shelf" options.

Pod
9th September 2006, 11:46
Is there not the danger in all of this that of finance sign off on 100 million for the MPV there may not be funds available to replace the other two for quite some time i.e. well beyond their 30 year lifespan- or am I being just a tad cynical here?

Goldie fish
9th September 2006, 12:48
Not if its done properly. The Replacement programme should be one order for three ships, not three seperate orders. Its been done in the past. Emer, Aoife and Aisling were all part of one order. Eithne was supposed to be one of three, but Industrial disputes at the yard caused her cost to over run dramatically. These days a tendering process agrees a price. The Person who wins the contract is commited to that price regardless of what happens.

Finance Budget for three vessels at, lets say €150m. Dockyards submit their proposals to fulfil the order within that price bracket. Any Cost overruns after the contract is signed are usually the Dockyards problem.
The difficulty in Verolmes case for the P30 class was that as a Semi State company, the cost overruns in the Dockyard were the States problem.

We have a great advantage at the moment in that a number of world Navies are seeking similar vessels, both for Ocean Patrol and Multi role tasks.

For example, Portugal have this type in the Pipeline.
http://www.envc.pt/ing/marinha/npo2000/npo2000.jpg
Main Particulars
length Overall
83.10 m

Length in water line
76.80 m

Depth to main deck
6.90 m

Depth to castle deck
9.60 m

Beam at water line
12.26 m

Maximum beam
12.95 m

Scantling Depth
3.69 m

Displacement
1600 t

Maximum stable speed
20 knots

Accomodation (nº of Cabins)
25

Complement (officers, petty officers and sailors)
35 persons

Extra accommodation
32 persons

Range
Fuel - 5000 miles in 14 days at 15 knots

Potable water : 30 days


Engines
2 x 3900 KW Diesel engines at 1000 r.p.m.

2 x 200 KW propulsion electric motor (low speed) at 1000 r.p.m.

propeller - 2 x Ø 2550 mm- 5 blades - variable pitch


Electric power production
4 x 362 kW diesel generator sets


Command and Surveillance system
Information Integration System

Integrated platform management system

Integrated Navigation System

Integrated communication system
MF/HF/VHF/UHF, , including satellite terminal
INMARSAT, GMDSS and access to SIFICAP


Rescue, transport and patrol means
2 semi-rigid boats

2 small botes


Guns / Weapons
1 x 40 mm fire gun

Pollution Control Vessel
http://www.envc.pt/ing/marinha/ncp2000/NCPImagem.jpg

Goldie fish
9th September 2006, 14:31
Incedentally..

http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/10390.pdf

Te Kaha
9th September 2006, 15:32
Right now lane metres might not be a worry to the Naval Service, but if a future Irish Reinforced Company Group was to be deployed somewhere under a UN Chapter 6 senario or part of the Irish contribution for a Euro Battle Group deployment, I am sure the Irish Defence Force would like a vessel that could swallow up a fair bit more than 200 lane metres. The Meko 200 MRV looks great but over time its lack size will be a hinderance when it comes to sealift capacity. More and more will be asked of the Irish MRV ( and the IDF internationally ) by the middle of next decade than would be (is) asked of it today. I believe as time goes on the MRV's sealift role will increase in operational tempo and its EEZ patrol role will decrease. The size of its sealift requirements will also increase over time as well. So in 2006 the Meko 200 MRV on the surface seems the answer, but in 2016 Im afraid it won't be the case.

I dont think this proposed new vessel should be just about what the INS envisages out of its MRV or just what it needs presently - but what the wider defence force and geo-political requirements are of such a vessel as Ireland transitions like it or not towards a higher tempo international role in peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian support over the next decade consumerate to international expectations. I feel that this is something that politically Ireland may soon have to deal with even though there is a generally jaundiced attitude amongst Irish civilians about Defence matters. More will be asked of Ireland as a wealthy Western democracy in the future not less - especially as it has proven itself on the international scene in recent years as a small specialised professional defence force. The world will need and ask for an increased Irish presence in defence and security matters internationally. Basically more of the same but alot more of it.

Therefore Ireland must look to a vessel with at least enough sealift capacity to deploy a reinforced company group with 3 months of logistical sustainability. The vessel should also be able to support a deployed Naval helicopter and provide hanger space for the new AW139s. I also think that consideration must be made for the inclusion of a Well Dock or RoRo in its design. Essentially I feel that Ireland should be looking at an 'improved' Tenix MRV design in terms of size and capability or indeed something similar. Anything less than that will be questionable over the long haul.

Sea Toby
9th September 2006, 17:29
While I am no expert, when I look at the MEKO 200 MRV or the other OPVs using helicopter hangar and deck space for vehicle sealift, I don't see 100 million Euros, I see at best twice the price of a Roisin OPV, at most 60 million Euros. When the minister says 100 million Euros for one ship, I suspect a larger ship.

When I look at the Irish equipment and LAVs with the New Zealand equipment and LAVs for a company group, I don't see much difference. If New Zealand needed 390 lane meters to meet its requirement, surely it stands to reason that Ireland's requirement is similar.

About a year or so ago I read this article in Armada magazine describing a number of different multi-role vessels for a number of nations.

www.armada.ch/05-5/complete_05-5.pdf

This magazine left the impression that Portugal has already decided, when in reality they haven't decided. Like New Zealand, Portugal has been receiving a number of different designs from the shipyards to meet their requirement. New Zealand received 21 different unique designs for its multi-role vessel. Of course, this doesn't mean that Ireland will decide on the same vessel. I'm sure Ireland's needs are different from New Zealand's and/or Portugal's needs.

If, and its a big if, the Irish government has decided to spend 100 million Euros on a blue-green/patrol vessel, it would be foolish not to meet the army's sealift requirements. At 100 million Euros they should be able to purchase a civilian designed sealift ship larger or better than New Zealand's MRV, not a smaller less capable one.

Pod
9th September 2006, 19:01
Thanks for the clarification Goldie.

criodan
10th September 2006, 09:35
Greetings all,

May I ask a quick and sort of related question?

These proposed ships only seem to have one main armament, is this sufficient or does the defence (if required) come from other vessels?

Apologies for the ignorance expressed here but knowledge here is poor at best.

Criodán

Pod
10th September 2006, 09:55
Hi,
all current NS vessels have only 1 "main armament";
HPV Bofors 57mm
OPV/IPV Oto-Melera 76mm
P20 class Bofors 40mm

AFAIK these have been sufficient for NS needs to date. Whether or not these would be sufficent for self-protection in the face of any real effort to cause damage by astmetrical or conventional threats isyet to be tested- but bear in mind the primary role of the NS is EEZ/FP so the likelihood of that has got to be fairly remote (though not totally impossible).

Goldie fish
10th September 2006, 10:28
All Naval vessels, in addition to the Main Armament, are also fitted with a Secondary armament, which will shortly be standardised to 2 x 20mm Rhein Metall cannons.

Also, Numerous FN MAGs can be mounted at different locations on the main decks.

I can only assume that any New vessel would be equipped with the ORO Melara as standard main armament, but who Knows.

Dogwatch
10th September 2006, 12:58
The next class of vessels will be equipped with 76mm OTO Melara gun and the Radamec 2500 FCS.

DeV
10th September 2006, 14:11
Usually these types of vessels wouldn't sail into "harms way" without a naval escort of frigates and/or destroyers.

Sea Toby
10th September 2006, 15:30
Yes, bigger ships have larger drafts, but not necessarily that much bigger. For example, a list of suggested OPVs and MRVs:

Roisin class OPV: 78.9m length, 14.0m beam, 3.9m draft
MEKO 200 MRV: 121m length, 14.8 m beam, 4.35m draft
MEKO 100 OPV: 91.1m length, 11.8m beam, 4.4m draft
NZ MRV: 131.1m length, 23.4m beam, 4.76-5.3m draft
Kanimbla LPA: 129.2m length, 21.1m beam, 5.3m draft (former US Navy Newport LST)
Enforcer LPD(smallest): 129m length, 24.8 beam, 5.2m draft
Charles Upham(Don Carlos): 131.7m length x 21.1m beam x 6.2m draft

Here is a link to more of the Dutch Enforcer series of sealift vessels:
http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

As can be seen the difference in draft is around a meter at best, even though the ships have three or four times the displacement of a Roisin class OPV. The Newport LST were designed to be beached. The NZ civilian sisters were designed to serve the very small ports of Ronne, Denmark and Douglas, Isle of Man.

The Charles Upham was the small commercial cargo sealift vessel that New Zealand acquired in the 1990s, when it rolled considerably with light loads, she was sold.

Here is a link to the depth of Cork Harbor: Cork is Ireland's natural gateway to Europe and is the country's fastest growing. The governing depth of water at the harbour’s entrance is 12.9m
www.imdo.ie/port-of-cork.htm

Here is a link to a much smaller port of Kinsale, Ireland. Commercial ship depth is 5.3m. Of course its dock is only 60m in length. Length is more of a problem than depth.
http://www.irelandwide.com/port/kharbour/index.htm

Goldie fish
10th September 2006, 16:13
In Liberia, L.E Roisin went in without any Major surface warship backup, as did Rotterdam.

Dogwatch
10th September 2006, 16:58
In Liberia, L.E Roisin went in without any Major surface warship backup, as did Rotterdam.

Wrong for once Goldie ....... it was L.É. NIAMH, but you are right in that she travelled without any major surface support, because the ship was deemed capable of dealing with the threat in Monrovia (small arms, RPG's and technicals).

DeV
10th September 2006, 18:21
Niamh wouldn't be classed a major vessel, by anyones standards, a vessel such as those discuss here would be.

Was Rotterdam not offshore.

Marius
10th September 2006, 18:24
Great to be talking about this kind of stuff! New ship new ship new ship new ship!!! :-)

ropebag
10th September 2006, 18:39
will the IAC's fancy new helicopters be capable of operation from this new vessel, or does type/doctrine stand in the way?

given that i know sqat about the IAC's new choppers, would the type of jobs this MRV undertake require a medium/heavy lift helicopter - Merlin/Sea King/Chinook type thing?

(assuming that this vessel is acapable of landing a company group with all their kit, Artillery, Helicopters and Vehicles - both logistical and armoured)

pym
10th September 2006, 21:57
They would be capable, but the more pertenant question is whether the air corps would be able to handle a deployment ala the present one in Liberia - which is a whole other topic for the other section

yooklid
10th September 2006, 22:40
They would be capable, but the more pertenant question is whether the air corps would be able to handle a deployment ala the present one in Liberia - which is a whole other topic for the other section

If everything I've read to date is anything to go by (and everything I've read on this has been on IMO, so I am open to correction), they couldn't handle deployments off the coast.

I think it's time for a naval air wing.

ODIN
10th September 2006, 22:40
They would need a few more choppers before considering a deployment, that is in my opinion

criodan
11th September 2006, 02:24
As always thank you for the informative responses.

If the life expectancy is 30 years, why do they not get three or four helicopters that can be used for troop drop, medivac or any other requirement deemed necessary that can be used on this new ship? Now E100m is a lot of money and with the extra helicopters no doubt a few million more but wouldn’t these have a 30 year life also?

I just have this gut feeling that for a few extra million we could purchase good equipment that potentially will increase the safety of those personnel deployed overseas and the effectiveness of their tasks.

I mean what ever about fighter jets, a few decent troop and attack helicopters should really be considered by the Govt. at this stage. Economically the time is now for the state and if the Govt. is as proud as they articulate of the men and women proudly serving our nation overseas well they should put the safety of them first.

And sure if they’re not deployed overseas cant they travel the country opening boozers and the like, though we’d probably need a Chinook for some of them!
The sarcasm is cheap I know, but it’s Monday morning and it’s pissing down in not so sunny Australia!

Sea Toby
11th September 2006, 15:35
I'm sure a medium helicopter will do also. A NH90 or AB149 would do well with a multi-mission ship. Even an AB139 would do well, although it doesn't have as much lift capacity as the NH90 or AB149. There is a big difference in price between a NH90 and a AB139. A NH90 runs around 40 million Euros, a AB139 runs around 12 million Euros each. A NH90 costs more than a Roisin class OPV.

And it wouldn't hurt to think of more joint operations either. While New Zealand may have acquired naval helicopters for their ships, and operate them as naval helicopters with naval crews, their air force actually owns these helicopters, provide the pilots training, and runs the technical mechanical staff. When at the airbase, the air force runs them, when at sea, the captain of the ship controls them. Its a bit tricky, but NZ has been doing so for decades. Recently NZ placed its naval helicopters in a separate air force wing, to provide the wing with separate operational funding, cleaning up the red administrative tape somewhat.

Te Kaha
12th September 2006, 11:48
Sea Tobys correct on this. The RNZAF have been flying helicopters off RNZN frigates for around 40 years without problems. Since the establishment of a Joint Forces Command in 2001, the establishment of a dedicated Naval Helicopter Squadron last year, and the subsequent simplification of MoD financial outputs, its become a straight forward administrative transition from Shore to Sea for the RNZAF 6 Sdq. Its all part of the philosophy of the NZDF, 3 services - 1 Force.

If the IDF is going to go for a MRV for the NS which can also operationally deploy an Company Group sized Army contingent supported with IAC helicopters in the future, they should start thinking about small Joint Forces HQ separate to IDF HQ for operational planning and tasking. Since the establishment of JFHQ in NZ the irrational rivalry between the services down here has almost come to an end. Everyone seemingly is singing from the same songsheet and now value each others contributions a lot more.

Bravo20
12th September 2006, 12:24
Unlike other countries, the Aer Corps, Navel Service and Army are all part of the Defence Force under the overall command of DFHQ, so there would not be a need to seperate Joint Forces HQ as they are all part of the same force anyway.

Te Kaha
12th September 2006, 14:33
And so is the RNZAF, NZ Army and RNZN are part of the NZDF HQ, also the ADF (RAN, RAAF, Aust Army) for that matter. Joint Forces operations are a little more involved than staff officers at HQ level having meetings. The coordination of a tactical deployment with reference to logistics, personnel, intel/comms, plans, tasking etc is a modern military specialisation. Our messy deployment into Bosnia and the lessons learned after East Timor taught us the HQ Joint Forces approach was the way to go. I wouldnt dismiss it out of hand for Ireland as I think it would make life easier if or when your deployment tempo increases when the MRV arrives.

Dogwatch
16th September 2006, 13:14
http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/282952.jpg

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/282953.jpg

Commencing trials in Poland, early September 2006.