Thanks Thanks:  602
Likes Likes:  1,289
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 25 of 84 FirstFirst ... 1523242526273575 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 625 of 2084
  1. #601
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Utility wise the full utility could have been used a few times (let's look at since 2000):

    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2001
    Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp deployment - 2001
    Bosnia - SFOR / EUFOR rotation - 2003 (not sure if this was required)
    Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp withdrawal - 2003
    Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn deployment - 2003
    Kosovo - Tpt Coy / Inf Gp rotation - 2004
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp deployment - 2006
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp withdrawal - 2007
    Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2007
    Sweden - NBG ex - 2008
    ? - EUFOR Chad/CAR Inf Bn deployment - 2008
    ? - MINURCAT Inf Bn withdrawal - 2010

    Sweden - NBG ex - 2010
    Kosovo - Inf Gp withdrawal - 2010
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn deployment - 2011
    Lebanon - UNDOF - 2013
    Sweden - NBG ex - 2015
    Germany - EUBG ex - 2016

    Then there could have been other ops eg the clear up after the 2004 Tsunami, 2010 Haiti earthquake, the evacuation from Libya in 2011, foreign cruises (eg Niamh to the Far East in 2002 and Eithne to South America in 2006), I'm sure there are others
    Last edited by DeV; 13th January 2016 at 23:56.

  2. Likes Marius liked this post
  3. #602
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    571
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Utility wise the full utility could have been used a few times (let's look at since 2000):

    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2001
    Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp deployment - 2001
    Bosnia - SFOR / EUFOR rotation - 2003 (not sure if this was required)
    Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp withdrawal - 2003
    Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn deployment - 2003
    Kosovo - Tpt Coy / Inf Gp rotation - 2004
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp deployment - 2006
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp withdrawal - 2007
    Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2007
    Sweden - NBG ex - 2008
    ? - EUFOR Chad/CAR Inf Bn deployment - 2008
    ? - MINURCAT Inf Bn withdrawal - 2010

    Sweden - NBG ex - 2010
    Kosovo - Inf Gp withdrawal - 2010
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn deployment - 2011
    Lebanon - UNDOF - 2013
    Sweden - NBG ex - 2015
    Germany - EUBG ex - 2016

    Then there could have been other ops eg the clear up after the 2004 Tsunami, 2010 Haiti earthquake, the evacuation from Libya in 2011, foreign cruises (eg Niamh to the Far East in 2002 and Eithne to South America in 2006), I'm sure there are others
    What has the cost of the above lifts been, 18 lifts in 15 years doesnt really warrant an EPV an adequate lift capability as a necessity . Would we not be better to gat a ship that suits our realistic needs and hire in sealift as we need. As quoted the 2015 sealift to sweden cost €250,000. Not bad value for a service we need infrequently. What would a ship cost that meets our sealift requirement, and how long would it take to make that back, plus if our next deployment was landlocked like Chad, it wouldnt be much use. Then again maybe a few C-17s would be better

  4. #603
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    What has the cost of the above lifts been, 18 lifts in 15 years doesnt really warrant an EPV an adequate lift capability as a necessity . Would we not be better to gat a ship that suits our realistic needs and hire in sealift as we need. As quoted the 2015 sealift to sweden cost €250,000. Not bad value for a service we need infrequently. What would a ship cost that meets our sealift requirement, and how long would it take to make that back, plus if our next deployment was landlocked like Chad, it wouldnt be much use. Then again maybe a few C-17s would be better
    again, it depends on what you use it for.

    if you use it for exactly, and only, the above, then i see no point buying what is an easily hirable civilian cabability.

    however, if that is not the plan, that it would be used for the above and other sealift/NCE/disaster relief tasks, including ones where taking an unarmed civilian ferry might not be appropriate, then its a worthwhile purchace.

    new equipment changes behaviour. we can see that time and again within the DF - new MOWAG's lead to crunchier deployments - if the NS had had an Absolon type vessel in 2011 would it have taken part in the Benghazi evacuations along with everyone else? if in 2011 the AC had had a C-130 with a DAS, would it still have sent a stripped out CASA and a Learjet to Tripoli airport?

  5. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, pym, morpheus liked this post
  6. #604
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,707
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    What about the Graving Dock in Cobh? 25m is much too large to fit into it, so which Graving Dock would the NS use instead?
    Possibly the one where the ship would be built, in the UK or mainland Europe, until Irish industry gets the finger out. The option of purchasing a large enough floating dock and placing it in cobh would open that particular facility up to more work, if the repair yard wanted it.
    Is there still ship repair in Belfast?

  7. #605
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Should be pointed out of course that if keeping within the constraints (and keeping it as a coy gp sized vessel) then in the cases above you'd need to add probably another 9 journeys (or charter anyway).

    There is also potentionally other missions that could have been completed (eg the Mediterranean or to lift UN/EU forces.

    If you arm it too much, it will drastically reduce the cargo capacity (as there are size constraints), which will mean you have to charter more, if you add too many weapons the NS won't be able to man it or afford to buy it (and it would then have to be made smaller). So you could end up with a frigate (that can carry 10 TEUs) with no major meaningful role other than as a big expensive OPV.

    HDMS Absalon is well armed and about the right size but cost over €350m (to pay for it you'd need to reduce the army to 1 Bde)
    HMLMS Rotterdam is much bigger with lighter armament (don't have a cost).

    Not saying it isn't a valid argumen BTW but the Governmeht has decided that a MRV (with freight capacity), we know from the RFP the kind of size we are talking about (and we know it's the kind of vessel being looked for). Good VFM would say IMHO that it must be a meaningful freight capacity and that means min Coy Gp. IMHO a Bn Gp sized vessel is more desirable but it would be completely unaffordable, too big, the NS wouldn't be able to man it and it would be under utilised.
    Last edited by DeV; 14th January 2016 at 08:19.

  8. #606
    Lieutenant X-RayOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dublin
    Posts
    1,285
    Post Thanks / Like
    the more i read this thread the more worried and confused i become about what is being looked for....EPV / MRV / battleship / car ferry????

    furthermore, from what people who seem to know a bit about it are saying, it seems the comments or specs from DoD / WP so far appear to be vague, conflicting and have particular (seemingly artificial) constriants built in.

    nothing available or off the shelf seems to be apropriate.

    all of which makes me fear that we will end up going down the route of something specificially designed for us....which will enevitably be overpriced, under what capability it could have had and not practically suitable for any intended roles (too small to carry sufficient cargo and too slow/cumbersome to be an effective PV).

    is it going to be the Irish horse designed by committee that looks like a camel??
    The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete.....It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.We are to-day not far from a disaster.

    T.E. Lawrence, 2 Aug 1920.

  9. #607
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    As a flagship for the fleet and as the option that seems to "Tick" most of the boxes above and certainly would lead to a massive increase in capability surely purchasing an Absalon of our own is the obvious answer? Very capable as a Patrol Vessel and heli operations, ro ro, etc, huge flexibility, the only issue really is cost. Apart from the initial purchase cost what would ongoing running costs be like?

  10. Likes ias liked this post
  11. #608
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by X-RayOne View Post
    the more i read this thread the more worried and confused i become about what is being looked for....EPV / MRV / battleship / car ferry????

    furthermore, from what people who seem to know a bit about it are saying, it seems the comments or specs from DoD / WP so far appear to be vague, conflicting and have particular (seemingly artificial) constriants built in.

    nothing available or off the shelf seems to be apropriate.

    all of which makes me fear that we will end up going down the route of something specificially designed for us....which will enevitably be overpriced, under what capability it could have had and not practically suitable for any intended roles (too small to carry sufficient cargo and too slow/cumbersome to be an effective PV).

    is it going to be the Irish horse designed by committee that looks like a camel??
    That is the way tenders work, if you over specify you rule out a lot of competition potentionally (forcing you to take what's offer at their price with no room for negotiation). The NS isn't in the business of designing ships.

    The specs for the EPV laid out the general size of the vessel and some of the fit. Primary purpose will be as a large very capable PV with additional capacities (the RFP didn't specify what they would be, but it possibly hinted at it in an annex giving dims of vehicles etc (and any pics the NS showed of the blue/green vessel concept showed plenty of MOWAGs on board).

    The specs for the MRV could be hugely different (personnally dims wise I don't think they will be, they didn't just pull them out of the air for the EPV (there must be reasoning behind it).

    The NS is very knowledgable over what they want and need. Their vessels were the envy of many navies. In the modern navy (with the exception of the Peacocks which were purchased off the shelf 2nd hand), all the fleet has been custom built to NS needs.

    Deirdre was based on a trawler design. The P21 class were modifications of Deirdre's design.

    Eithne AFAIK was designed from scratch.

    Roisin is based on the Vard Marine (formerly STX Canada Marine) built Mauritian Vigilant PV (it is 3 metres longer and double the displacement though). Niamh I believe has a very small alterations over Roisin.

    The P61 class is based on Niamh.




    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    As a flagship for the fleet and as the option that seems to "Tick" most of the boxes above and certainly would lead to a massive increase in capability surely purchasing an Absalon of our own is the obvious answer? Very capable as a Patrol Vessel and heli operations, ro ro, etc, huge flexibility, the only issue really is cost. Apart from the initial purchase cost what would ongoing running costs be like?
    Ok, the Absalon class:
    Cost is a factor - giving it is probably at least double the cost that was budgeted for the EPV, and that is before you arm it. As the sensor, command systems etc would be based on the weapons fit (if you don't fit them you may save a little). We also wouldn't need the full suite that it has a command ship (even as the flagship). The SAMs and SSMs are in Stanflex containers you could just not buy them. You could also chose not to fit the torpedoes and CIWS. But none of that is going to drastically reduce the cost.

    Compared to the EPV specs
    They are within the dims for length and beam, they are OK for speed and range as well.

    At 100 crew, that more than likely could be reduced most of the time (and would be at least partially based on the sensor and weapons fit).

    It had a flight deck and hanger for 2 medium lift, we don't need the hanger or 1 of the deck spots (so that could be more storage).

    For me there are 2 main issues:
    Her draft is 26% more than the max in the EPV specs

    She has only 250 lane metres (which even if you take in the hanger space and some of the flight deck) - it isn't big enough
    Last edited by DeV; 14th January 2016 at 11:35.

  12. #609
    Private 3* Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe what's needed is an FHD, if the Americans ever build such a thing.

    At around 10,000 tons displacement, this would be a big frigate, larger than foreign-designed ships of analogous concept such as Denmark’s Absalon -class support ship and Germany’s F-125-class frigate.

  13. #610
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    HDMS Absalon is well armed and about the right size but cost over €350m (to pay for it you'd need to reduce the army to 1 Bde)
    HMLMS Rotterdam is much bigger with lighter armament .
    Absalon is designed as a frigate with a load carrying capability, it is wrong to put her down as an MRV, She is designed and focused on high end war fighting. Her hull is designed for higher speed than other mrvs, fitted with sonar and light helo for asw..... Heavy asuw and aaw missile capability.

    The issue isn't necessarily individual cost of supply runs..... It's about security of transit and supply.... And more importantly an ability to withdraw from an AO, without relying on a commercial entity.

  14. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes Marius liked this post
  15. #611
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    MRV for NAVAL SERVICE

    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwatch View Post
    Absalon is designed as a frigate with a load carrying capability, it is wrong to put her down as an MRV, She is designed and focused on high end war fighting. Her hull is designed for higher speed than other mrvs, fitted with sonar and light helo for asw..... Heavy asuw and aaw missile capability.

    The issue isn't necessarily individual cost of supply runs..... It's about security of transit and supply.... And more importantly an ability to withdraw from an AO, without relying on a commercial entity.
    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.

  16. Likes Galloglass liked this post
  17. #612
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwatch View Post
    ...The issue isn't necessarily individual cost of supply runs..... It's about security of transit and supply.... And more importantly an ability to withdraw from an AO, without relying on a commercial entity.

    this, this, absolutely this.

    the difference between an MRV and a civilian charter is the difference between flying Ryanair to Tenerife and getting on a C-130 in the middle of the Libyan desert at 2am with 7.62 short going off all around you.

    if you're comparing the circumstances in which you'd use them to work out which is better value you're fundamentally missing the point.

  18. Likes Marius liked this post
  19. #613
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Coy gp as the DF have structured it with UNDOF and EUBG are too small to be effective in the event of 1-2 vehicles being hit. The structure lacks resiliency and effectiveness with the missions that are being talked about here. For amphibious access you would need circa 500 troops + vehicles + heli support + IX + logs

  20. #614
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,198
    Post Thanks / Like
    IX?
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  21. Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #615
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.
    Didn't you just do that there?

    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Coy gp as the DF have structured it with UNDOF and EUBG are too small to be effective in the event of 1-2 vehicles being hit. The structure lacks resiliency and effectiveness with the missions that are being talked about here. For amphibious access you would need circa 500 troops + vehicles + heli support + IX + logs
    Which is why they don't operate alone.

  23. #616
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,707
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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).

  24. Likes DeV, ias liked this post
  25. #617
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like

  26. #618
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,198
    Post Thanks / Like
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  27. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  28. #619
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Jack View Post
    IX?
    Information Exploitation

  29. Thanks The real Jack, DeV thanked for this post
  30. #620
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,064
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  31. Likes na grohmití, ias liked this post
  32. #621
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?

  33. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #622
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 17th January 2016 at 13:39.

  35. #623
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,524
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  36. #624
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,064
    Post Thanks / Like
    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!!

  37. Thanks DeV, na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy, Turkey liked this post
  38. #625
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?)

  39. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

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
  •