Thanks Thanks:  608
Likes Likes:  1,294
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 77 of 84 FirstFirst ... 27677576777879 ... LastLast
Results 1,901 to 1,925 of 2092
  1. #1901
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    At a price of around €400m

    And a crew of around 150 (fully manned)
    The Algerian ship has a frigate's sensor suite and 16 Aster 15. We don't need that

  2. #1902
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    The Algerian ship has a frigate's sensor suite and 16 Aster 15. We don't need that
    So what's your suggestion? We buy a ship that is clearly for amphibious type operations (and could have a significant number of DF personnel on board for a mission) and hope that if it's ever deployed in an unstable area that either a) somebody comes along to protect it for us or b) paint it white and hope nobody throws a missile at it?

    It comes back to the core issue of the EPV/MRV for me, if we are talking about something that's going to be doing more EU/UN operations out of EEZ in areas of instability then it's almost insane to talk about spending 200 million plus on it and then not having her fitted for defence, but that means it won't be 200 million either.

  3. Likes ropebag, Shaqra liked this post
  4. #1903
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thats the problem here.
    While it may be possible to get a LHA or LPD within the dimensions or budget required, without the rest of the fleet being able to provide a similar layer of defence it is a waste of time because you cannot deploy it anywhere dangerous unless you are in theater with another nations navy with the right type of heavily armed vessel.
    We have a fleet of 8 OPVs, none of which is armed with anything heavier than a 76 mm cannon, none of which has air defence radar, let alone missiles or chaff launchers.
    What we actually appear to be looking for here is an OPV, that has some extra space aboard for carrying a small number of vehicles or military cargo to a secure location. Maybe even deploy to Bere Island without having to rely on Mr Murphy's ferry, for starters.
    Baby steps.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. Likes Turkey, hptmurphy liked this post
  6. #1904
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    And we discussed the same vessel about 12 months ago and you weren't in favour of it then?????
    At the time the dimensions hadn't been set. The San Giusto is the size being conjectured and we have links with the Italian navy. However it doesn't preclude other choices, once RFT outline Specs are met.

  7. #1905
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    ..without the rest of the fleet being able to provide a similar layer of defence it is a waste of time because you cannot deploy it anywhere dangerous unless you are in theater with another nations navy with the right type of heavily armed vessel....
    i would have thought that the vessel being in-theatre with other nations FF/DD's (as well as AOR's, and other amphibious/support vessels) was a given - not least because whatever capabilities the EPV/MRV ends up with aren't going to amount to much on their own. it needs a baseline capability in order to go to dodgy places and to be able to contribute, but it doesn't need to be able to do everything because it will be with other ships, all of which, together, complete the jigsaw.

    the kind of ops it might partake in - non-combattant evacuations in the eastern and southern Med, counter-trafficing/terrorism, amphibious/littoral support for EU/UN land ops etc.. would certainly have a Theatre Entry Standard of, say CIWS and softkill DAS, but each individual vessel doesn't need to also have area air defence and mine detection gear.

    i also don't see why - or to be frank - how, anyone would be looking at deploying two NS vessels on such an op: its the MRV that would be providing the capability in such operations, bringing a sparcely equipped OPV as well when there will be French/German/Italian/Danish/Swedish FF/DD's in attendance is just a fuel wasting exercise in national feel good, it wouldn't actually contribute much.

    buy a single vessel for overseas operations, equip it to a baseline where it can participate and meaningfully contribute, and accept that area air defence - like AOR, and ASW, MCM and all the rest, will be provided by the other members of the task group - just as the nation that sends an FF will accept that the amphibious/log spt tasks will be carried out by, in this case, Ireland.

    steel is cheap and air is free - no captain in history ever said 'i wish my flight deck was smaller'.

  8. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Turkey, Anzac, Shaqra liked this post
  9. #1906
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    In terms of the National Development plan, while the EPV is referenced for funding due the 2018-2027 period, there's no mention of the Peacock's during that period?

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  11. #1907
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of the National Development plan, while the EPV is referenced for funding due the 2018-2027 period, there's no mention of the Peacock's during that period?
    “fleet renewal and replacement programme”

    Your right though MRV purchase and Niamh & Roisin mid life refit mentioned

  12. #1908
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    “fleet renewal and replacement programme”

    Your right though MRV purchase and Niamh & Roisin mid life refit mentioned
    I figured those three were what was intended, certainly I can't see with there being enough money in this plan for two new hulls of a new design to replace them.

  13. #1909
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    I figured those three were what was intended, certainly I can't see with there being enough money in this plan for two new hulls of a new design to replace them.
    Mid life refits are a normal part of ship maintenance an imply doubling her life at time of completion. Certain items may be upgraded/replaced and capability may be enhanced all out of Budgets. New ships are planned capital expenditure and are provided separately . P50 X 2. and P60 X 4, and MRV x 1 = 7, so replacement of P40 X 2 is required to achieve " nine ship " navy. What that might be is one for the planners. We need to consider MWCM for mine clearance using diving clearance and other modern technology using adaptable craft capable of operating ROV's. The MRV , with OPV, and MCM, could be a complete mini Task Unit with in-built durability.

  14. Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #1910
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Mid life refits are a normal part of ship maintenance an imply doubling her life at time of completion. Certain items may be upgraded/replaced and capability may be enhanced all out of Budgets. New ships are planned capital expenditure and are provided separately . P50 X 2. and P60 X 4, and MRV x 1 = 7, so replacement of P40 X 2 is required to achieve " nine ship " navy. What that might be is one for the planners. We need to consider MWCM for mine clearance using diving clearance and other modern technology using adaptable craft capable of operating ROV's. The MRV , with OPV, and MCM, could be a complete mini Task Unit with in-built durability.
    The White paper has identified Mine countermeasures as a furure requirement. I understand the MWCM function is something which can now be a containerised unit, rather than a task specific ship. The only question, and it is one covered in depth in another thread is if the P40 replacement will be of similar size or as many have predicted, just more P60s with containerised mine clearance technology. The Canadians already do it this way with the Kingstons. When the ships are deployed as mine countermeasures, they have the container aft on deck. Otherwise they are just standard OPVs.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  16. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, ias liked this post
  17. #1911
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Although crew comfort is important we are talking about a warship and above everything is capability. The focus should be on how well any design can complete a mission. Within that matrix crew comfort is a factor but it is not the most important.
    Define the mission....if the crew ain't happy you lose about 50% of your capability to make it happen.

    Extended operations are only feasible if your crew have sufficient facilities to maintain some degree of normality. This was one of the principle driving factors in the build of all naval service ships going Back to LE Deirdre....if you overlook that everything else is very precarious.

    But to the point of no people ... no crew...the NS will tie up older ships or extend refits to put new ships to sea. The day you can't put a ship to sea because of lack of crews or perceived lack there of, like some of the recent figures, your establishment will be cut and capital funding dries up.

    Raision d' etre.... put ships to sea...fail to do so.... good luck....!
    Time for another break I think......

  18. Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #1912
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Thats the problem here.
    While it may be possible to get a LHA or LPD within the dimensions or budget required, without the rest of the fleet being able to provide a similar layer of defence it is a waste of time because you cannot deploy it anywhere dangerous unless you are in theater with another nations navy with the right type of heavily armed vessel.
    We have a fleet of 8 OPVs, none of which is armed with anything heavier than a 76 mm cannon, none of which has air defence radar, let alone missiles or chaff launchers.
    What we actually appear to be looking for here is an OPV, that has some extra space aboard for carrying a small number of vehicles or military cargo to a secure location. Maybe even deploy to Bere Island without having to rely on Mr Murphy's ferry, for starters.
    Baby steps.
    Yet again the voice of reason!!!!
    Time for another break I think......

  20. #1913
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Define the mission....if the crew ain't happy you lose about 50% of your capability to make it happen.

    Extended operations are only feasible if your crew have sufficient facilities to maintain some degree of normality. This was one of the principle driving factors in the build of all naval service ships going Back to LE Deirdre....if you overlook that everything else is very precarious.

    But to the point of no people ... no crew...the NS will tie up older ships or extend refits to put new ships to sea. The day you can't put a ship to sea because of lack of crews or perceived lack there of, like some of the recent figures, your establishment will be cut and capital funding dries up.

    Raision d' etre.... put ships to sea...fail to do so.... good luck....!
    Hasn't the RN been struggling with the very issue of manpower for crews for years now?

  21. #1914
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Hasn't the RN been struggling with the very issue of manpower for crews for years now?
    Possibly. It has occurred due to critical management decisions due to rapid shedding of tonnage, closure of establishments, offers of voluntary retirements, and ultimately dispersion of knowledge to civvy street, overlaid with new vessels with high learning curve demand, and teething problems with systems. All part of a PEACE DIVIDEND that has gone bust.
    As regards our MRV and it's equipment, and it's relationship with the rest of the fleet, it is possible to meet today's defence requirements, by retro-fitting something like SEAHAWK series on the fleet. Perhaps in addition to 76mm, a Seahawk Sigma on MRV, and Seahawk lightweight on the P60's/P50's.
    Clearance diving can be done from any ship equipped to do so but ties up a ship's crew in the grind.

  22. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  23. #1915
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    You need 3 -4 TEUs spaces really for MCMV type work really

  24. #1916
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Kingston class carry up to three. These contain any combination of the following, depending on mission.
    • AN/SLQ-38 Mechanical Minesweeping system
    • AN/SQS 511 Side scan sonar.
    • Trailblazer 25 ROV
    • HYSUB 50 ROV
    • Containerised Diving system
    • 6 Person accomodation modules.
    • Remote minehunting and disposal system.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  25. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, ias, EUFighter liked this post
  26. #1917
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Hasn't the RN been struggling with the very issue of manpower for crews for years now?
    Certainly has, but for slightly different reasons.

    Our people are leaving because the job doesn't pay what it should... the RN, the pay is reasonable but with compulsory redundancies over the past few years they have been loosing key people forcing people to extended rotations aboard ships which unlike our own after often deployed away from home for 6 month periods.

    Given how the RN has downsized in ship numbers the actual exit figures must be huge.
    Time for another break I think......

  27. #1918
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    968
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at how the UK is planing to go back to the future post Brexit maybe the'll introduce the press the gang again to crew their ships ,just like in the good old days when they were a world power and all that .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  28. #1919
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Its worse, they have increased the upper age limit in an attempt to get exers back in uniform. Upper age limit is normally 37 (!!!) but is extended for those who are seeking to re-enlist.
    Add to this the "service leaver" option, seeking people with trades to join the RN.
    So now they have some guy who was an AB before the falklands and went on his ticket as soon as the ships started heading for colder waters, is now back and telling the young lads and ladies how things should be. He is backed up by a similar vintage former civvy street mechanic, now a CPO whose main skill in his past life is sucking air through his teeth while stating "its gonna cost ye".
    It is not working out as they had hoped.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  29. Likes sofa liked this post
  30. #1920
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Its worse, they have increased the upper age limit in an attempt to get exers back in uniform. Upper age limit is normally 37 (!!!) but is extended for those who are seeking to re-enlist.
    Add to this the "service leaver" option, seeking people with trades to join the RN.
    So now they have some guy who was an AB before the falklands and went on his ticket as soon as the ships started heading for colder waters, is now back and telling the young lads and ladies how things should be. He is backed up by a similar vintage former civvy street mechanic, now a CPO whose main skill in his past life is sucking air through his teeth while stating "its gonna cost ye".
    It is not working out as they had hoped.
    No for-taught whatsoever

    They let buys go and after the fact offer golden handshakes to come back as reserves

    It’s an issue across the British military

  31. #1921
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    No for-taught whatsoever

    They let buys go and after the fact offer golden handshakes to come back as reserves

    It’s an issue across the British military
    It happens when you have two conflicting needs been driven by a number of agencies, including a civilian one. It is now a bit like the maths problem of having a leak in the bath, at so many liters per minute, and a tap filling at the same time. What speed should the tap fill in order to reduce the bath capacity from 300 liters to 150 litres, not knowing the rate of leak or fill. When civil servants are driving indifferent politicians especially those in spending departments then the highway gets strewn with "hit and run " casualties. At this time Defence and show the Flag capabilities need to stabilise.

  32. #1922
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Laners View Post
    Looking at how the UK is planing to go back to the future post Brexit maybe the'll introduce the press the gang again to crew their ships ,just like in the good old days when they were a world power and all that .
    Jaysus if our mob go down that road, you could be back on the Eithne.......
    Time for another break I think......

  33. #1923
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So what's your suggestion? We buy a ship that is clearly for amphibious type operations (and could have a significant number of DF personnel on board for a mission) and hope that if it's ever deployed in an unstable area that either a) somebody comes along to protect it for us or b) paint it white and hope nobody throws a missile at it?

    It comes back to the core issue of the EPV/MRV for me, if we are talking about something that's going to be doing more EU/UN operations out of EEZ in areas of instability then it's almost insane to talk about spending 200 million plus on it and then not having her fitted for defence, but that means it won't be 200 million either.
    That capability is much much more than we sensibly need. If we want self defence, enable the 76 for Strales, add a millennium gun in the stern and give it a decent rader, like TRS-4D R. The Algerian one has the same radar the FREMMs have.

  34. Likes DeV, na grohmití liked this post
  35. #1924
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Certainly has, but for slightly different reasons.

    Our people are leaving because the job doesn't pay what it should... the RN, the pay is reasonable but with compulsory redundancies over the past few years they have been loosing key people forcing people to extended rotations aboard ships which unlike our own after often deployed away from home for 6 month periods.

    Given how the RN has downsized in ship numbers the actual exit figures must be huge.
    The pay in the RN is below that of the NS, a newly appointed RN Sub-Lieutenant gets £32000 (€36300) p.a. In the NS the same rank gets €39200. Although for certain ratings/ranks there might be an advantage for the RN in general the NS is good in comparison.

    The problem of crews for the RN is not new even in the time of Nelson they had problems keeping the experience crews needed. And a lot of the problems from those times are the same today and the steady decline in the size and importance of the RN is an issue.

  36. Thanks na grohmití, DeV thanked for this post
  37. #1925
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Kingston class carry up to three. These contain any combination of the following, depending on mission.
    • AN/SLQ-38 Mechanical Minesweeping system
    • AN/SQS 511 Side scan sonar.
    • Trailblazer 25 ROV
    • HYSUB 50 ROV
    • Containerised Diving system
    • 6 Person accomodation modules.
    • Remote minehunting and disposal system.
    The SB's have been designed to carry 3 TEU's but I have never seen a tender for any MCM equipment, and last year when the tragic accident happened with Rescue 116 it was a civiy ship that had the RoV. There are plenty of suppliers around Altlas, Saab, DCNS..... so it is not for the lack of supplier, maybe and this is more likely is that this kit does tend to cost. For their fleet of 12 vessels the Canadians have the following:
    2 × Indal Technologies AN/SLQ 38 deep mechanical minesweeping systems
    4 × MDA Ltd. AN/SQS 511 heavy-weight high-definition route survey systems
    1 × ISE Ltd. Trailblazer 25 bottom object inspection vehicle
    1 × ISE Ltd. HYSUB 50 deep seabed intervention system
    2 × Fullerton and Sherwood Ltd. 6-man, 2-compartment containerized diving systems
    6 × naval engineered 6-person accommodation modules
    1 × MDA Ltd. Interim Remote Minehunting and Disposal System

    Some like the 6-person accommodation modules would not be needed on the SB.

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: 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
  •