EPV for naval service

[Herald]

I'd be very wary of basing Foreign and Defence policy around Brexit.
Where I might plan for it, on the basis that I'd plan for all eventualities, I doubt very much that will be result on the day.

[DeV]

If they do vote for it we'll have 2 years to plan for it.

[paul g]

Agreed.

But I think they will tend toward a large OPV with heli deck, no hanger and a weapons fit similar to what we have now,. Cost multiplies hugely at the mention of the word 'frigate' where 'patrol vessel' tends to be somewhat cheaper.

Agreed, they'll go for a weapons fit similar or possibly a little bit enhanced to the holland class the Dutch have. A 30mm would give enhanced anti surface capability and is already in service with ordance. They might also be tempted to fit a helicopter hanger for flight ops, the bluffwaffe is better at operating outside office hours than the 1980's and far more professional.

That will give marine an extended patrol vessel that can patrol the extended eez, and foreign affairs a vessel that can deploy at part of a task force on maratime security duties such as anti piracy.

[Flamingo]

Agreed, they'll go for a weapons fit similar or possibly a little bit enhanced to the holland class the Dutch have. A 30mm would give enhanced anti surface capability and is already in service with ordance. They might also be tempted to fit a helicopter hanger for flight ops, the bluffwaffe is better at operating outside office hours than the 1980's and far more professional.

That will give marine an extended patrol vessel that can patrol the extended eez, and foreign affairs a vessel that can deploy at part of a task force on maratime security duties such as anti piracy.

It will also give Clare Daly, Mick Wallace et al a collective Stroke, so it's win-win

[pym]

It will also give Clare Daly, Mick Wallace et al a collective Stroke, so it's win-win

DALY: "Will the minister comment on reports in the media that the new naval vessels will use NATO standard weapon calibres. Of the same type used by American war mongers in Afghanistan and Iraq.. And that these same weapons have been used by the so called Defence Forces for some time?"

MINISTER: yes

DAIL: *AUDIBLE GASPS*

[ibenji]

DALY: "Will the minister comment on reports in the media that the new naval vessels will use NATO standard weapon calibres. Of the same type used by American war mongers in Afghanistan and Iraq.. And that these same weapons have been used by the so called Defence Forces for some time?"

MINISTER: yes

DAIL: *AUDIBLE GASPS*

So what? Surely more standardised weaponry is better and cheaper in the long run. More weapons the better I think

[Galloglass]

If they do vote for it we'll have 2 years to plan for it.

We will be up to our ears dealing with it from day one Dev.
We will have to stay out of Schengen or build a wall from Donegal to Carlingford and personally I want our fish back as the "UK" negotiates getting the EU out of it's EEZ.
If Sco breaks away (Stays in EU and possibly the "UK" too) we need to negotiate a co-operation strategy with Holyrood ......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xnveOPFX9s

[pym]

Um, that's the joke.

[Bravo20]

MOD: There are already 2 threads dealing with this, the Brexit one and the end of the EU one. Please keep the political conversations to those threads and stick to the EPV selection here

[EUFighter]

The name EPV like the others used to classify our ship (HPV, LPV) are only there to avoid calling them military names such as corvette, frigate etc.
Before we order something new I would ask again the questions:
(a) Do we need and "extended range" vessel?
(b) Is any part of our home patrol waters more them 2000nm from the nearest Irish port?
(c) Are the waves in a winter storm bigger 400nm offshore than 200nm offshore?

To spend more time at sea requires not only more fuel, provisions but also more crew as more routine maintenance items need to be done at sea. This is one of the reasons why for the 3750t Holland class they only have a patrol duration from 21days. But if we want to provide more capability due to the ships being at the limit or out of range for ICG helicopters then this should be the driver. And to avoid calling it a frigate it is then a LPV(H), and it does not need to spend 40days at sea which would in itself not help the crew situation we have today.

[hptmurphy]

But if we want to provide more capability due to the ships being at the limit or out of range for ICG helicopters then this should be the driver.

Forget about the Coast Guard operating their helos onto a Naval Service ship. too costly in training hours and wasteful of ships time.

[restless]

Forget about the Coast Guard operating their helos onto a Naval Service ship. too costly in training hours and wasteful of ships time.

so no helos of any kind on any ns vessel then?

[hptmurphy]

so no helos of any kind on any ns vessel then?

No, just not the Coast Guard, bear in mind they are a contracted civilian entity and do not have any obligation to do so bearing in mind their primary obligation is civilian SAR.

Given the notional life span of ships including a flight deck means there maybe options in the future to have one operate from a ship should it be required.

Realistically I can't see a time where the DF will let the NS have its own helicopters or where the AC will operate from a ship but if we enter into the 110 -120 m type ships why not have some capacity.

Build it and then argue the finer points of who when and how after wards. We made the mistake in the past of removing the equipment that would have made flight ops optional while retaining the deck based on the assumption we would never under take a mission that would utilize a helo. Lets not limit future missions by not at least having a flight deck to give us options into the future.

Again remember the projected life span of these ships is 30 years, if in 20 years it becomes an option at least we will have future proofed the option.

But again to be honest I don't see the coast guard doing it or even the DF in the next 10 years.

[The Usual Suspect]

To my mind, for the Naval Service's next four vessels, the ideal would be to produce two complimentary, but distinct classes of Ocean Patrol Vessels, both capable of fulfilling and, if at all practicable, exceeding Eithne's originally designed role and capabilities.

Two of the vessels should have high end emergency towing and environmental protection capabilities. The vital economic, environmental, and national security necessity of this capability is outlined here. To be frank we have been extremely lucky not to have already suffered badly for the lack of this capacity.





There are many proven vessel designs capable of fulfilling this secondary role extremely well, and the primary patrol role the Irish Naval Service would ask of them, quite indifferently. Or vice-versa. But there may be a possible design basis to marry these capabilities more effectively.



Original Post Here


The two other vessels should be capable of supporting international engagement missions (humanitarian/peacekeeping/peace-enforcement).



Original Post Here

I've done a back-of-the-envelope recalculation of my original sea lift capacity workings to assess the potential viability of the smaller, more basic, Damen Crossover models. To test if, in the name of commonality of equipment and design, the DoD decided that four smaller versions of this design may be preferable to two each of the two different design concepts I'm proposing. In this scenario the Emergency Towing requirement would be fulfilled by the Coast Guard or via a PPP.

Estimated Army foreign mission sea-lift requirements:

EU ISTAR 530 lane metres + 20 TEUs requiring 1 Crossover 139 Logistic (Heavy Load)
Coy Group 320 lane metres + 20 TEUs requiring 1 Crossover 139 Logistic (Standard Load)
Btn Group 725 lane metres + 90 TEUs requiring 2 Crossover 139 Logistic (Intermediate Load)

24 TEUs Stacked 2 high on flightdeck 6 across (15m) take up 12.2m of deck or 48.8 lane metres (4 lanes at 3.5m wide each)
96 TEUs Stacked 2 high on flightdeck 6 across (15m) take up 48.8m of deck or 195.2 lane metres (4 lanes at 3.5m wide each)

Lane Metre workings: Vehicle Decks + (Hangar + Flightdeck - Interface Hangar/Flightdeck) = Total available deck length / 4 vehicle lanes

Crossover 131 L 28.75 x 2 + (28.75 + 42.10 - 5.00) = 123.35 x 4 = 493.40 Lane Metres
Crossover 139 L 36.75 x 2 + (36.75 + 42.10 - 5.00) = 147.35 x 4 = 589.40 Lane Metres

EU ISTAR 530 lane metres + 20 TEUs requiring 2 Crossover 123 Security (Light Standard Load)
Coy Group 320 lane metres + 20 TEUs requiring 1 Crossover 123 Security (Heavy Load)
Btn Group 725 lane metres + 90 TEUs requiring 2 Crossover 123 Security (Very Heavy Load) or 3 Crossover 123 Security (Intermediate Load)

Crossover 115 S 12.75 x 2 + (12.75 + 42.10 - 5.00) = 75.35 x 4 = 301.40 Lane Metres
Crossover 123 S 20.75 x 2 + (20.75 + 42.10 - 5.00) = 99.35 x 4 = 397.40 Lane Metres (Basic 115 Security stretched by 8 metres amidships)

I believe, subject to sea-keeping, operating efficiency and clarification of internal volumes that the 139 metre variant in the original post is the superior proposition.

I understand that this finding complies with the Naval maxim, 'Steel is cheap and air is free.'

Commonality of systems and equipment is, of course, something that the Naval Service should strive for and it is far from beyond the wit of man that a great deal of progress can be made in this direction building upon experience gained with the Samuel Beckett class. Given the diverse secondary roles and capabilities of these vessels, in particular, it may be that a high degree of system and equipment similarity may be a more achievable and ultimately a more beneficial objective.




Although possible contending designs for four new single class Ocean Patrol Vessels from Vard or Damen would be fine additions to the existing fleet, they would not offer the advance in capability and utility that a more strategically-minded acquisition programme could produce. Given that the expected life of Naval Service vessels is three to four decades, decisions made now should in as far as it is possible, attempt to maximise the capability, flexibility, and utility of the fleet for decades to come.

[hptmurphy]

Hope you can keep the thread going for another ten years, because thats the credible time scale now that another P60 is going on the blocks.

[EUFighter]

There is nothing to say the EPV will not be ordered. One additional P60 does not mean that there will not be further ordern to come.

[Sparky42]

There is nothing to say the EPV will not be ordered. One additional P60 does not mean that there will not be further ordern to come.

Exactly, it could very well be that this is the "ninth ship" that was floated (maybe it was already well in hand when the Program for Government was being drawn up which is why it ended up in it), and the replacement for Eithne is still waiting to be decided on?

[The Usual Suspect]

Hope you can keep the thread going for another ten years...

A man needs a hobby.

[na grohmití]

STX France seem to have come up with their take on the 90m OPV with freight space. Interesting idea but I'd love to know where they squeeze in crew accommodation.

Key elements of the design, the helicopter hangar installed at the lower level is served by a lifting platform and is enclosed into a 500m² large storage area located aft which can be tuned to various missions. this space is able to store heavy RIB commando crafts, 20ft containers, and light army vehicles. RIB launching is ensured by the aft ramp or through two side doors. A unique overhead traveling crane can launch the RIBs as a davit and load containers directly from a harbor dock.
The superstructure is crowned by a panoramic bridge with an aviation control center, and shelters operational rooms and living quarters, as well as an unmanned aircraft.
Finally DEFENDSEAS is designed to integrate a large weapons and sensor suite which gives it the capability of a true warship.

Range	6000nm at economical speed
Displacement	2500T
Speed	25 Knots
Beam	15m
Length	90m
Armament	...
Crew	70

[Sparky42]

Yeah 70 crew plus hanger/cargo deck space on a 2500 ton ship, seems nuts to be honest, I couldn't see them fitting "Western" levels of Crew accommodation on board, also wonder what her endurance would be? To me it would look to be closer to the Corvette's sold to some Asian countries than something in Europe.

[hptmurphy]

Yeah 70 crew plus hanger/cargo deck space on a 2500 ton ship

Very possible indeed. At one point Eithne had 73 crew embarked without counting Air Corps people ..at 1900 tons and the accommodation was quite comfortable, far better than the PVs

Junior rates , four to a cabin, senior rates two, Officers cabin each and OC had his own flat, along with Flag officer Accom, plus various messes, recreation areas and Ward room.

[sofa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xilYlZgqZl4

[Laners]

Very possible indeed. At one point Eithne had 73 crew embarked without counting Air Corps people ..at 1900 tons and the accommodation was quite comfortable, far better than the PVs

Junior rates , four to a cabin, senior rates two, Officers cabin each and OC had his own flat, along with Flag officer Accom, plus various messes, recreation areas and Ward room.

100+ or so on the first trip to the States .

[hptmurphy]

100+ or so on the first trip to the States .

Inclusive or exclusive of the 'passengers'???

[expat01]

Hope you can keep the thread going for another ten years, because thats the credible time scale now that another P60 is going on the blocks.

Ooh that sent me googling. So a fourth P60 in two years...is Eithne slated to retire by then? Because if the CPVs are getting replaced in a "like for something like" manner, this sounds promising.