Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The best way to go is to decide the Multi Role Capability we need and commit it to paper as an expression of interest. Send the expression of interest to suitable yards and see what comes up. Pitch the ship at about 4000 tonnes, speed range to 24 knots, range 10,000 at cruise speed 15kts, armament to defend ship and support multi role tasks including landing and recovering troops from non quay wall scenarios.
    I think that was the purpose of the RFP in 2006. However since then more navies are looking for similar ships so the market may have more variety to offer. I'm sure a lot was learnt from the NZ experience with Canterbury, which was similar in concept, but seems to be unable to do either patrol or supply well.
    At the outset though the concept was simple. A larger Patrol vessel of about 4000tonnes, and 120m LOA. This was to address the requirement to patrol the western extremities of our Atlantic waters all year round. The extra internal space these dimensions would bring should be arranged in such a way to be able to accommodate TEU or Vehicles, with appropriate cargo handling equipment to self unload, whether this be via ramp to shore or crane.
    The limitations of the basin or drydock entrance should not be an issue, being as they are in the scheme of things easy to overcome. Build a quay wall outside the basin (already planned) and encourage local ship repair facilities to invest in their own business or lose all possibility of future Naval work, (currently their bread and butter).
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Thinkdefence have a very detailed section on ship to shore logs
      Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The real Jack View Post
        IX?
        Information Exploitation

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
          Didn't you just do that there?


          Which is why they don't operate alone.
          Yes I did. Troop landing over the beach needs to be supported from shore and sea. No ship should be deliberately beached unless designed to do so such as LCP's or LCVP's. We would really have to settle for a viable ship, with a large helo spot, that could operate at least two crane operated LCP's and all other supports would come from those already ashore or carried on bigger support units such as LD type vessels. Logistic ships rarely operate alone unless you are the Danish Absalon with a high offensive/support capability as demonstrated off the Horn of Africa. We know elements of our needs such as gained from experience in the Mediterranean such as embark up to 750 refugees. We possibly need to consider maintaining high numbers on board for voyage duration in the case of repatriation of disaster casualties walking and wounded. It's all a big ask but should only be answered in sustainable part.
          As noted elsewhere , some Lemons have been acquired in an attempt to produce an MRV.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
            I think that was the purpose of the RFP in 2006. However since then more navies are looking for similar ships so the market may have more variety to offer. I'm sure a lot was learnt from the NZ experience with Canterbury, which was similar in concept, but seems to be unable to do either patrol or supply well.
            At the outset though the concept was simple. A larger Patrol vessel of about 4000tonnes, and 120m LOA. This was to address the requirement to patrol the western extremities of our Atlantic waters all year round. The extra internal space these dimensions would bring should be arranged in such a way to be able to accommodate TEU or Vehicles, with appropriate cargo handling equipment to self unload, whether this be via ramp to shore or crane.
            The limitations of the basin or drydock entrance should not be an issue, being as they are in the scheme of things easy to overcome. Build a quay wall outside the basin (already planned) and encourage local ship repair facilities to invest in their own business or lose all possibility of future Naval work, (currently their bread and butter).
            Hold on a second, how practical is it to suggest the Cobh yard builds a new Graving dock based off the need to support 1 new Naval ship? I mean are they turning away other hulls due to the limitations of the current dock width? When was the last time anyone in Ireland built a brand new Graving Dock?

            Comment


            • Absolutely but the NS is having serious difficult (on an ongoing basis) getting its strength up to establishment.

              Even a crew of 90 would be a big additional ask at the moment.
              Last edited by DeV; 17 January 2016, 14:39.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                Is there still ship repair in Belfast?
                Yes two docks...556x93m and 335x50m.

                The main dock is serviced by the gantry cranes...Samson and Goliath.
                'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

                Comment


                • Dry Docking of ANY ship in Ireland is going to be problematic shortly, as the new port extension at the North Quay Dublin will include closing down Dublin Port's drydock, which was built by us, post War, in the 50's. If Cork drydock were to close then everybody on this side of the Island would be up that Creek without a paddle. We drydock 3 or 4 ship's annually, so it's to our advantage that adequate facilities are maintained. Dublin Port Company should be required to provide an alternative before rendering their only dock useless. Currently strategic assets can be sacrificed to the whims of a commercial gain. A large floating dock is a consideration as is the restablishment of a Naval Dock in the Naval Dockyard!!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    Dry Docking of ANY ship in Ireland is going to be problematic shortly, as the new port extension at the North Quay Dublin will include closing down Dublin Port's drydock, which was built by us, post War, in the 50's. If Cork drydock were to close then everybody on this side of the Island would be up that Creek without a paddle. We drydock 3 or 4 ship's annually, so it's to our advantage that adequate facilities are maintained. Dublin Port Company should be required to provide an alternative before rendering their only dock useless. Currently strategic assets can be sacrificed to the whims of a commercial gain. A large floating dock is a consideration as is the restablishment of a Naval Dock in the Naval Dockyard!!
                    If we are talking about having to build a new Quay Wall for larger ships at the base, how could repairing the Graving dock in the Basin change the issue, surely it would have the same restrictions that the Basin has anyway? And again could the budget stretch to such a large capital expenditure at the same time as buying the MRV? And again it would come back to substantial costs for a limited pool (particularly if it was in the Naval Base, which means only the NS would use it?)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      Hold on a second, how practical is it to suggest the Cobh yard builds a new Graving dock based off the need to support 1 new Naval ship? I mean are they turning away other hulls due to the limitations of the current dock width? When was the last time anyone in Ireland built a brand new Graving Dock?
                      They don't need to build a new graving dock. Just replace the floating dock they cut up for scrap with one large enough to accommodate the typical vessel that visits the harbour. The first thing the receivers of verolme did was sell the larger floating dock.
                      There are two floating docks visible in the lower photo, as was the situation when the yard closed. Now there are none, and all work must go to the Graving dock, built in the 1950s.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                        If we are talking about having to build a new Quay Wall for larger ships at the base, how could repairing the Graving dock in the Basin change the issue, surely it would have the same restrictions that the Basin has anyway? And again could the budget stretch to such a large capital expenditure at the same time as buying the MRV? And again it would come back to substantial costs for a limited pool (particularly if it was in the Naval Base, which means only the NS would use it?)
                        It is as simple as this. All ships require berths, not just to ship lenght but also with adequate wriggle room. Likewise all ships require drydocking, which includes ships with failed propulsive power, requiring towage to nearest drydock , wherever that may be. The choices are build your own, or use somebody else's facility. In the case of drydocks strategic interests should prohibit disposal by Harbour Companies, and in the case of berths ALL harbour authorities should provide a suitable dedicated Naval Berth especially when constructing new berths such as at Ringaskiddy. I remember a ship I was on being ordered off our berth in Surabaya, Java, to let an Indonesian destroyer alongside for three days. It was designated a Naval Berth.
                        Last edited by ancientmariner; 18 January 2016, 10:44.

                        Comment


                        • When the NS is going to be looking for funding for the MPV (possibly in excess of €100m) and 2 new CPVs (let's say €30-40 million each) funding for other projects will be scarce (DF wide).

                          The drydock in Haulbowline would be good to have but wouldn't provide good VFM (especially when the expertise would possibly have to be contracted in anyway). It would only be used max 12 weeks annually (typically max 8 weeks) - the money would be better spent elsewhere (unless they sell it, but if there isn't enough work for Dublin and Cork???). Maybe a multi-annual agreement with Cork Dockyard (would help to keep it open).

                          A suitable berth at Haulbowline is vital first (that's where it will be based). It doesn't really matter I suppose if it was to be berthed in the basin or elsewhere (could always go to Ringaskeddy (or elsewhere for loading with green painted stuff as required), but for all other reasons-Haulbowline. If a new quay wall is required (and isn't prohibitive expensive) so be it.

                          I don't know if the dims on the RFP were to make it able to fit in the Basin or not, but it could be.
                          Last edited by DeV; 18 January 2016, 12:33.

                          Comment


                          • The more I read about the next 3 vessels, both here and elsewhere, the more convinced I am that we could be making a big mistake trying to find 2 off the shelf or new-design vessels to fit the WP. What's required first and foremost are large patrol vessels for the North Atlantic.

                            Would it not make more sense to standardise on the broad current design, maybe add 10m, order 3 to get the best price, and equip one to a very high weapon/sensor fit to act as the flagship?

                            I know it's not what's outlined in the WP, but that's just a piece of paper.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tempest View Post
                              The more I read about the next 3 vessels, both here and elsewhere, the more convinced I am that we could be making a big mistake trying to find 2 off the shelf or new-design vessels to fit the WP. What's required first and foremost are large patrol vessels for the North Atlantic.

                              Would it not make more sense to standardise on the broad current design, maybe add 10m, order 3 to get the best price, and equip one to a very high weapon/sensor fit to act as the flagship?

                              I know it's not what's outlined in the WP, but that's just a piece of paper.
                              If you modify an existing ship (be it an Absalon class or P51/P61) you can model how it may perform but you won't know for 100% sure until you put the real thing on the water. Especially when you do things like alter the length or beam (which both effect speed and more importantly stability).

                              There really isn't an off the shelf vessel that meets all the requirements IMHO. So it doesn't matter we will be modifying some design or another (or rather the ship designers will be).

                              Remember we are talking about 3 vessels of 2 very different designs and tasks.

                              On modifying the P51 design to get a CPV, it isn't altogether a bad idea but wouldn't be insignificant changes (10-20% reduction in length and a reduction in displacement of probably at least 33%)

                              On modifying the P61 design to get a MRV, where are you going to put all the vehicles and TEUs? Looking at length your talking about a 45% increase in length!!!!

                              There seems to be a big feeling here that the WP is just a piece of paper. Look at how long it was in development and look at most important internal DF strategy etc documents, I guarantee you it will be referenced!
                              Last edited by DeV; 18 January 2016, 16:21.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X