Thanks Thanks:  484
Likes Likes:  1,040
Dislikes Dislikes:  30
Page 68 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18586667686970 ... LastLast
Results 1,676 to 1,700 of 1752
  1. #1676
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    I believe you mean kW ...
    Yes. I should have stated 5KVA or 500KW.

  2. #1677
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Within the 2018 Budget statement on Defence it mentions replacements for Cessna and Casa. There are also references to Mowag units and a confirmation of providing an MRV for the Naval Service. If a ship has up to 130 lane metres for military vehicles it can certainly carry , over a short term, the associated personnel, equipment and stores. The difficulty is the mode of discharge which will have to be soft to a quay wall or else a completely different vessel with dock or gantries for LCPV's would be required. In passing HMS Clyde and HMS Mersey are for sale and the former was stated to be able to ferry up to 100+ personnel (Marines)

  3. #1678
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,634
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Within the 2018 Budget statement on Defence it mentions replacements for Cessna and Casa. There are also references to Mowag units and a confirmation of providing an MRV for the Naval Service. If a ship has up to 130 lane metres for military vehicles it can certainly carry , over a short term, the associated personnel, equipment and stores. The difficulty is the mode of discharge which will have to be soft to a quay wall or else a completely different vessel with dock or gantries for LCPV's would be required. In passing HMS Clyde and HMS Mersey are for sale and the former was stated to be able to ferry up to 100+ personnel (Marines)
    Must have, should have, could have

    To deliver a worthwhile capability (IMHO) we need 130 lane metres and 20 TEUs, max 50 additional berths (vehicle crews and a local security force), at the very least armament in line with current OPVs, helicopter pad, integral crane and docking systems.

    Nice to have/should have would be capability to take a Bn minus (including the troops) and the capability to protect them.

    It isn't an ideal world and something like Absalon would cost all the (increased) capital budget for everything across the DF for 4 years, for something that will rarely be used. Therefore we need to be realistic.

    We could however end up with a OPV plus with space for 10 TEUs. I think we both know the NS (and probably the DF) want the full bells and whistles but they can only get what they have the money for.

    The RN OPVs haven't been offered for sale yet.

  4. #1679
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    ...Therefore we need to be realistic.

    We could however end up with a OPV plus with space for 10 TEUs. I think we both know the NS (and probably the DF) want the full bells and whistles but they can only get what they have the money for...
    10 TEU's, to use your example, simply aren't worth the compromise to the ship their stowage would require - at what point should the NS staff just say 'actually, don't bother with the Happy Shopper sealift capability, just give us another OPV'?

    if you want Logs capability you need a Logs ship - either something akin to a scaled down Bay Class or an AOR - and accept that its ability to chase fishing boats is going to be a bit compromised, if you want a patrol ship you buy a patrol ship and accept that if you want stuff moved you'll have to ask someone else.

    i still take the view than an AOR is the answer - its far easier politically than anything fighty or landy, you get a lot more for your money, and you'll have an asset that is actually in demand and whose use will earn browny points, which, to be frank, a shit frigate won't.

  5. Thanks Sparky42 thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42, pym liked this post
  6. #1680
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    10 TEU's, to use your example, simply aren't worth the compromise to the ship their stowage would require - at what point should the NS staff just say 'actually, don't bother with the Happy Shopper sealift capability, just give us another OPV'?

    if you want Logs capability you need a Logs ship - either something akin to a scaled down Bay Class or an AOR - and accept that its ability to chase fishing boats is going to be a bit compromised, if you want a patrol ship you buy a patrol ship and accept that if you want stuff moved you'll have to ask someone else.

    i still take the view than an AOR is the answer - its far easier politically than anything fighty or landy, you get a lot more for your money, and you'll have an asset that is actually in demand and whose use will earn browny points, which, to be frank, a shit frigate won't.
    Got to agree here, some sort of neither fish nor fowl ship that can't carry enough for credible joint operations (and the needed defence systems for such a hull) , but's still too much for Patrol is questionable to me in terms of value for money, particularly when we are talking about just 1 hull...

  7. #1681
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's all very well, but LE Shit Frigate just rolls off the tongue.

  8. Likes ropebag liked this post
  9. #1682
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,634
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    10 TEU's, to use your example, simply aren't worth the compromise to the ship their stowage would require - at what point should the NS staff just say 'actually, don't bother with the Happy Shopper sealift capability, just give us another OPV'?

    if you want Logs capability you need a Logs ship - either something akin to a scaled down Bay Class or an AOR - and accept that its ability to chase fishing boats is going to be a bit compromised, if you want a patrol ship you buy a patrol ship and accept that if you want stuff moved you'll have to ask someone else.

    i still take the view than an AOR is the answer - its far easier politically than anything fighty or landy, you get a lot more for your money, and you'll have an asset that is actually in demand and whose use will earn browny points, which, to be frank, a shit frigate won't.
    Thing is a lot of what is on the market (i.e. Flex decks, modular etc) is around the 10 TEU mark. Even with 130 lane metres we are going to be looking to others (civvy or military) to do a lot of work (e.g. EUBG exercises) but something bigger will be unaffordable. We don't need a well dock, that is overkill.

    An AOR will be even more expensive and arguably less capable. We don't need it.

    IMHO if we can get the right design of flexible MRV at the right cost I believe we are aiming about the 130 lane metre mark.

    Of course we haven't asked what other roles could the MRV be asked to undertake....... could we end up with a ETV with helipad and ability to take 20 TEUs?
    Last edited by DeV; 12th October 2017 at 13:20.

  10. #1683
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Err...
    Navy considers €200m multi-role ship

    A delegation is set to visit New Zealand shortly to look at a warship which could become a blueprint for the new ship — and could cost up to €200m to construct.

    A small group consisting of Department of Defence officials and experts from the Defence Forces have been invited by the New Zealand government to inspect HMNZS Canterbury, which was designed by the New Zealand navy.

    An MRV could measure up to 150m in length, dwarfing the navy’s largest vessel which is 90m long.

    It is intended that it will replace the ageing LÉ Niamh as the navy’s flagship.
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...ip-460791.html



    (I know.. I know...)

  11. Thanks ropebag thanked for this post
  12. #1684
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    I do remember reading that they had sorted out some of the initial problems with the hull but what's the current views on her? Also I suppose the difference is the RNZN has a couple of frigates and an AOR to create a more credible and functional force structure...

    Also a PDF on Canterbury:
    http://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/Up...l-delivers.PDF
    Last edited by Sparky42; 12th October 2017 at 14:07.

  13. #1685
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    A/ Its based on the Ferry Ben Mo Chree, so why do they need a jaunt to NZ to check it out? And didn't they keep an eye on it previously anyway, when it was being built and commissioned?
    B/ I can see that rolling like a barrel in the North Atlantic if you're using it to do FP.
    D/ Its the bleeding Canterbury.
    E/ You can't bring it anywhere remotely dangerous without giving it adequate protection......properly tooled escorts.
    F/ We Don't have properly tooled Escorts.
    G/ €200M for a car ferry?

  14. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  15. #1686
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hopefully the visit is so the RNZN can explain to the INS why the concept of converting a truck ferry into a patrol vessel failed.
    In case some numpty in dod sees early praise for the idea on Google and decides to take it off the RNZN' s hands.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  16. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #1687
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Herald View Post
    G/ €200M for a car ferry?
    Well this is BAE remember - and worse - Aussie BAE, so we'd be lucky to get it for <€300M.

    And yes, the logic of putting a very large percentage of the best troops and equipment into harms way on a ferry is kinda worrisome.

    If it's not intended to go into harms way, the existing arrangement of hiring the services of a civvy ferry seems fine.
    Last edited by pym; 12th October 2017 at 14:32.

  18. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  19. #1688
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Based on what has previously been said here the requirements are to be able to carry an advance party and their equipment in a secure Naval fashion. Liberia being the recent example. A naval vessel brought a recce unit to AO, unloaded them at a secure port AND stood off providing c3 until the operation was fully established. It also provides basic medical facilities until a proper hospital equipped ship arrived.
    At home the same vessel can be used for island relief when no aircraft can access.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  20. Likes DeV liked this post
  21. #1689
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,634
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's remember that although DF elements could potentially be part of an early entry force, they are unlikely to be engaged in an over the beach invasion without the express consent / invitation of the country they are landing in. This vessel will operate in a relatively permissive environment, that isn't to say there is always the unexpected and other elements.

    If we are we are also highly unlikely to be operating alone.

    If the environment they were putting into was let's say operationally and/or logistically challenging there is often a friendly safe port or if need be country nearby.

    I'm not saying that we don't need the AD missiles, CIWS, SSMs etc etc but if we can't afford the ship to put on them....


    Why go to New Zealand? Why not? Learn from their mistakes!

  22. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  23. #1690
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look up Review and Functionality Report on HMNZS Canterbury available on the internet. The vessel is lively but has been rejigged to meet the report recommendations. . Ships that carry loads need to be at their designed draft so they require a Sea Water Ballast system to load the ship to that draft. An honest visit to see things first hand and a chat with the Boatswain about her daily use would be very worthwhile. This ship should be exclusively built under Naval control with advice as necessary from Navies that operate rotary aircraft and carry marine trained troops for shore tasking.

  24. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #1691
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    At home the same vessel can be used for island relief when no aircraft can access.
    How many times has that been a needed requirement?

  26. #1692
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Based on what has previously been said here the requirements are to be able to carry an advance party and their equipment in a secure Naval fashion. Liberia being the recent example. A naval vessel brought a recce unit to AO, unloaded them at a secure port AND stood off providing c3 until the operation was fully established. It also provides basic medical facilities until a proper hospital equipped ship arrived.
    At home the same vessel can be used for island relief when no aircraft can access.
    If that's the goal, then I guess it'll be a stretched OPV design/baby frigate design, probably not a million miles from Babcock's Arrowhead, albeit without all the fancy weapons systems - extra accom, c3, medical facilities etc.

    It will offer a very limited lift capacity versus Canterbury, Absalon etc - but if it's going to spend 95% of its lifetime in the OPV role, it makes sense.

    The bulk of the gear - if it's to travel by sea - will travel as on civilian vessels as before.

  27. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  28. #1693
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,634
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can't find the blue/green ship thread but there was a pic of a proposed EPV with MOWAGs etc being loading (pics also appeared in An Cosantoir) - anyone know what design it was based on?

    Edit
    http://www.dfmagazine.ie/wp-content/...c_2005_low.pdf

    Read the concept (and look who wrote it)
    Last edited by DeV; 12th October 2017 at 17:20.

  29. Likes pym liked this post
  30. #1694
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    MEKO 200 MRV, I believe. By Blohm and Voss (now ThyssenKrupp).
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  31. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  32. #1695
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    MEKO 200 MRV, I believe. By Blohm and Voss (now ThyssenKrupp).
    Did anyone ever buy that variant of the MEKO?

  33. #1696
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Did anyone ever buy that variant of the MEKO?
    Nope. It was put forth as a contender for the RNZN requirement, but they went with a ferry painted grey instead of a frigate with less weaponry but more useable deck space.
    No longer being offerred, unsurprisingly, ten years on.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  35. #1697
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    So what's the likely off the shelf options for the 200 million figure?

  36. #1698
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,283
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So what's the likely off the shelf options for the 200 million figure?
    That's just it. It depends what the requirements are. I imagine the old EPV specs are now history, given they have gone back to the MRV title on official policy documentation.
    We'll have to wait and see.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  37. #1699
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So what's the likely off the shelf options for the 200 million figure?
    A ball of shite.

    the Naval service are now looking at a concept that is ten years old that after Liberia the Army never revisited and was proven to cheaper to deploy peeps and jeeps by commercial means... the original EPV ? MRV were on the wish list of a defence force that never came about because of a recession. RThe three for one policy has never been given credibilty even though the rest of the world buys into it, to have one operational and effective you need three.

    Son in effect we are looking at an unproven concept within the Naval service to fcuk about with and drink money at the expense of better ships for roles that are being carried out as opposed to pipe dreams.

    Being floated out as an Eithne replacement, and lets all remember how that concept ended up and how it ended up as just an OPV with extra deck space!

    It has taken us 15 years to evolve the Roisin Class into useful vessels, they had their flaws that took time to iron out, this will be a 200 million euro sponge that will eat money and resources and probably won't see service within the next ten years.

    Just buy a couple of low end Frigates for the same money and get over this blue/ green pipe dream
    Just visiting

  38. Likes Sparky42, Tempest, ODIN liked this post
  39. #1700
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,634
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nothing wrong with Roisin's design as far as I'm aware, the seas the NS are going into are bigger.

    Eithne's design (like the Deirdre and Emer classes) was based on a trawler wasn't it. Ever vessel since has been based on a commercial/naval PV design. You'd imagine that the MRV will be based on MOTS/COTS design

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 29th December 2015, 13:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •