Thanks Thanks:  759
Likes Likes:  1,582
Dislikes Dislikes:  40
Page 100 of 100 FirstFirst ... 50909899100
Results 2,476 to 2,482 of 2482
  1. #2476
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    As ever, you've got to decide what you want first - is it a 5,000 ton OPV with room for ten TEU and a party pack of Haribo, or a 20,000 ton logistics ship with a GPMG and a loudhailer - or some unholy cut and shut abortion of a ginger stepchild that tries to do both and does neither?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Is that you're opinion of the Vard design?

    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post

    If it's a logs/amphib vessel operating on purely Irish tasks then it's a capable vessel (but probably shit for chasing fishing boats) but if it's something to be used on a European level, whether HADR or defence/security, then it's pretty woeful as as a logistics ship (third of the lane metres of a Bay Class, a fifth of the LM of a Point Class), so (for a task force commander) simply not worth the effort required to protect it.

    A task force commander has a finite number of escorts - and of course their capabilities will be variable - that will give him/her a finite number of ships he can protect. He's simply not going to chose to take a ship (all other things being equal), that has 400+ LM and 300 bodies over a ship with 1000+ LM and 700 bodies.

    It's also worth noting that the Vard ship has a very light armament - that could undoubtedly be significantly uprated, and I'd being looking at CWIS in its many versions for that - but its price would go up sharply when you put a pair of Phalanx, jamming gear, decoys, a pair of RWS 30mm, and of course a helicopter. Something like an EC-135 would be quite useful as a reece/communication tool, but without one the ship, acting on its own, would be significantly inhibited.
    From what I’ve heard the DF knows what it wants, the WP15 supports it (but is vague enough that they may not get it), DoD stance (.... at a guess I would say they want a rowing board capable of deploying 3 personnel armed with 9mm , other Government Departments probably supportive of the DF view (possible exception being DPER).

    We will never be likely to be seeking to deploy a Mech Inf Bn across a beach under fire. Irish needs are different to other countries.

    Look at the Vard designs that the P50s and P60s, were originally based on - they are similar but very different. Nothing to say that the MRV (if based on this Vard design) wouldn’t be similar in this regard (eg could have a 76mm, a few 20mm’s, smaller flight deck, no hanger etc etc

  2. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  3. #2477
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Might not be a cheap option; Project Resolve the Canadian conversion of the tanker MS Asterix to act as an interim AOR (until their new even more wildly expensive versions of the Berlin class arrive) is C$700m, €465m. To put that into comparison the Dutch paid €363m for the JSS Karel Doorman and the Norwegians €135m for the AOR HNoMS Maud.

    Sometimes it is faster and cheaper to build new rather than to convert, not always but most times.
    It appears that the Canadian Navy are happy enough to hang onto the Asterix well beyond what was envisaged because it has worked out so well.

    Given our ships are built to Lloyds standards as opposed to Naval standards any conversion is going to be cheaper than a Naval build
    Time for another break I think......

  4. Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #2478
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post

    We will never be likely to be seeking to deploy a Mech Inf Bn across a beach under fire. Irish needs are different to other countries....
    Comforting perhaps, but actually incorrect.

    Turning up at a destroyed port with HADR aid after the world's biggest hurricane/earthquake actually looks a lot like D-Day.

    If Oxfam designed and built a ship who's purpose was to to go to post-apocolyptic Carribbean islands with JCB's, water purification plants, a field hospital, matting for a runway, bridging gear and a million packets of custard creams it would look almost exactly like a Bay Class, or an Albion class or a Karel Doorman. the physics of moving stuff from a ship to land don't change regardless of what you're moving or who's doing it.

  6. Likes Rocinante liked this post
  7. #2479
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Post Thanks / Like
    The original planning for the epv tended for in 2007 started around 2003 and therefore predates Liberia and Chad missions both of which will inform the design of the present ship especially the helicopter debacle in Chad. The vard design would have been a force multiplier in Liberia where long range patrols were deployed from the Dutch marines ship to great effect. The battalion deployed to Liberia would have been accommodated for example.

    As for armament its a ship that is going to spend most of its life in hadr and peace support missions in Africa and possibly the Caribbean the 25/30mm cannon It has armament that is more then adequate for west African navies and Air Force capabilities especially if it deploys with other EU forces.

    If you think about what the Df does , has done and the political will for them to do in the future something like the vard design is ideal for potential missions which will be the Liberia/Chad type. It might not be what the British would want but then again nobody in the EU really cares what they think anymore
    Last edited by paul g; 24th May 2019 at 11:33.

  8. Likes Herald, hptmurphy, apod liked this post
  9. #2480
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Vard design could probably carry IRCON for an EUBG or a Coy Group plus... and that would probably use of the flight deck for vehicles/containers

  10. #2481
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Global Security, late 2009
    Sweden's experience with deploying troops to Chad raised the question of whether the RSwN had a requirement for an upgraded amphibious capability. In 2008 Swedish soldiers were deployed in Chad. ..[They] were originally scheduled for deployment in December 2007, but equipment shortages and increasing violence in Chad resulted in extended delays. As a result, the six month mission was reduced to four months. After accounting for transport time and other preparations, the time that Swedish troops actually spent carrying out their mission was reduced to four to six weeks, to be withdrawn before the onset of the rainy season in June.

    The newspapers Svenksa Dagbladet (SvD) and Göteborgs-Posten (GP) both argued that the government should either devote more money to the operation, or simply refrain from sending troops in the first place. GP calls the current circumstances "indefensible" and urges the minister to act quickly or risk having "a glow of shame" be the only lasting impression from Sweden's mission to Chad. The tabloid Aftonbladet did not mince words in its frustration over the situation, calling it "a terrible waste of resources and not morally appropriate" that so much money be devoted to so short a mission. "It sounds rather remarkable that bad weather could force home a Swedish peacekeeping force after just a few weeks. As far as we can tell the refugee camps will still be there—even if it rains."
    There was quite a detailed debate over the desirability of a dual-role vessel; one which could deliver naval infantry and/or support two corvettes on an extended overseas mission, or a more capable multi-role vessel that could provide expeditionary headquarters, medical support, repair & maintenance, fire support etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Security in the same article. Quoting the Swedish Navy CSS project requirements officer.
    The multi-role ship solution ... enables us to maximise our sealift capability, which is generally needed for a short duration during the initial phases of an operation, and then shift to the logistic support role, supporting both naval units as well as potentially units ashore if needed.
    Amongst others, two Ro-Ro derived concepts were considered..

    145 to 160 meters
    12,000 to 15,000 tonnes (full load)
    Ro-Ro deck of approximately 1,250 m2 (420 vehicle lane metres) or 10 CB-90s
    Cargo space (weather deck) 900 m2 cargo on the weather deck
    Two fast supply craft, on davits.
    Crew of 55-60
    Naval Infantry up to 400 troops

    Displacement 13,430 tonnes
    Total cargo deck area will be equal to 2,150 m2 (720 vehicle lane metres)
    No docking facilities, but facilities for up to 12 CB-90s, which can be set afloat by means of a slip or a crane.
    Two NH90 helicopters
    Naval Infantry up to 170 troops

    There's a good deal of overlap, and a good deal of divergence from what we're discussing here. Not least in the absolute size and endurance of the vessel. But transporting 12 CB-90s, and supporting them for a limited period of time, is something that the Vard design should be able to do standing on it's head.
    Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means - Zhou Enlai

  11. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  12. #2482
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Thanks / Like
    SAR mission's , i bet the Green Party would like the sound of that .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  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