Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • The action with the surface pylon target and the aerial Banshee drone showed the effective capability of guided ammunition. It does need all the interfaces such as detection and FCS. This shoot was centered on 100% certainty of " kill ", however the conditions do not match real hostile contact at high speed of a manoeuvering attacking surface or aerial target, where many other factors contribute, such as weather, sea state , and crew skills. The main lesson for me is we need this sort of capability for surface and air action.

    Comment


    • There has been much chat about diluting the need for a seagoing logistics pillar within the Naval Service. Without underweigh replenishment UNREP, a ship only has its endurance to go and comeback. It's theater sustainability is only that endurance. In looking after its own needs , it would have to abandon station, and those depending on its presence. You cannot project power and remain functional without a mobile portion of Naval base facilities such as ammo., spares , food , oil , water ,and general consumables including medical stores. More than one ship proceeding overseas should be accompanied by a logistic capable vessel.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        There has been much chat about diluting the need for a seagoing logistics pillar within the Naval Service. Without underweigh replenishment UNREP, a ship only has its endurance to go and comeback. It's theater sustainability is only that endurance. In looking after its own needs , it would have to abandon station, and those depending on its presence. You cannot project power and remain functional without a mobile portion of Naval base facilities such as ammo., spares , food , oil , water ,and general consumables including medical stores. More than one ship proceeding overseas should be accompanied by a logistic capable vessel.
        Or we leverage off our friendly Allies who might be doing the same mission (for example how the EU operation has had different nations providing the logistic supports). As someone already said we seem to be going from rational discussions about an MRV into Fantasy Fleet stuff, we aren't going to buy a Logistic's ship.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post






          Top photo is Eithnes Rh202, lower tow are of the now standard weapon
          are eithnes 202s chain driven chambering/cocking like the newer ones fitted on the 60 class?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            ????

            I'm against a RoRo ferry vessel that little if any other utility

            I'm for a MRV with significant carrying capability
            As na grohimiti plainly laid out - it would be a working vessel, paying for its keep and offering service to the state as a whole, rather than just for the DF. There are discussions and debates to be had about whether that is practical, or even desirable - but you've just ignored his point entirely.

            You said it would be cheaper to charter as required - that's certainly true but equally can be used as an argument against an MRV which, if it can carry a typical overseas contingents personnel & equipment, will be less than optimal as a patrol vessel - which it will spend at least 95% of its life doing - yet be far more expensive.

            I said many pages back that if the only deployments envisaged were no more dangerous than they are already, then the only thing that's cost effective is using a ferry. At that point I suggested either continue hiring, or perhaps a public/private deal. To be honest, I personally like the idea of an island nation maintaining a nascent national sealift capacity and if a national sail training vessel could be justified, surely a merchant training vessel could be too. As ropebag explained, and you again ignored - the potential for such a vessel as a practical and political tool for Ireland and the EU is really endless.

            Would it be 100% owned by the NS? Or would it be owned by the Dept. of the Marine? Department of Enterprise? Or co-owned by all the above - with the DF allotted a guaranteed lift within XX days notification?

            It's a discussion well worth having, not deliberately ignoring because the white paper says such and such.
            Last edited by pym; 22 February 2016, 20:12.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by restless View Post
              are eithnes 202s chain driven chambering/cocking like the newer ones fitted on the 60 class?
              The Eithnes ones have a different cocking mechanism as can be seen from the photo, the box type section above the left hand of the gunner has a winding handle with cocks the weapon, might be repositioned on the newer weapon, I don't know, I never fired the lower ones.
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                Or we leverage off our friendly Allies who might be doing the same mission (for example how the EU operation has had different nations providing the logistic supports). As someone already said we seem to be going from rational discussions about an MRV into Fantasy Fleet stuff, we aren't going to buy a Logistic's ship.
                I would agree with you if our alliances were in place and tested by programmed LOGEX's and by occasions of opportunity. However " political neutrality " gets in our way.We may also need in-house engineering to ensure we can transfer liquids intership at sufficient pace.
                If we were sending a couple of ships for ANY reason down the West Africa coast, in support of an Irish/UN Mission , after three weeks plus mission durability would be wearing thin. Every Navy needs Logs on tap. Hired or owned.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  I would agree with you if our alliances were in place and tested by programmed LOGEX's and by occasions of opportunity. However " political neutrality " gets in our way.We may also need in-house engineering to ensure we can transfer liquids intership at sufficient pace.
                  If we were sending a couple of ships for ANY reason down the West Africa coast, in support of an Irish/UN Mission , after three weeks plus mission durability would be wearing thin. Every Navy needs Logs on tap. Hired or owned.
                  is there anything to suggest that the ad-hoc efforts of friendly countries aren't enough? is there an equipment issue whether the current vessels aren't built/equipped in such a way as to make RAS doable?

                  the politics aren't, i think a factor. they are undoubtedly an issue if a dozen RAF Chinooks go the the Glen to play, not i would suggest 5,000 miles away and so far from a crusty with a camera phone that they could be on the far side of the moon.

                  if RAS isn't going to take place in Dublin Bay, but in the middle of nowhere in the Med, or the Atlantic, then its simply not an issue - because no one will ever know...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    I would agree with you if our alliances were in place and tested by programmed LOGEX's and by occasions of opportunity. However " political neutrality " gets in our way.We may also need in-house engineering to ensure we can transfer liquids intership at sufficient pace.
                    If we were sending a couple of ships for ANY reason down the West Africa coast, in support of an Irish/UN Mission , after three weeks plus mission durability would be wearing thin. Every Navy needs Logs on tap. Hired or owned.
                    Originally posted by pym View Post
                    As na grohimiti plainly laid out - it would be a working vessel, paying for its keep and offering service to the state as a whole, rather than just for the DF. There are discussions and debates to be had about whether that is practical, or even desirable - but you've just ignored his point entirely.

                    You said it would be cheaper to charter as required - that's certainly true but equally can be used as an argument against an MRV which, if it can carry a typical overseas contingents personnel & equipment, will be less than optimal as a patrol vessel - which it will spend at least 95% of its life doing - yet be far more expensive.

                    I said many pages back that if the only deployments envisaged were no more dangerous than they are already, then the only thing that's cost effective is using a ferry. At that point I suggested either continue hiring, or perhaps a public/private deal. To be honest, I personally like the idea of an island nation maintaining a nascent national sealift capacity and if a national sail training vessel could be justified, surely a merchant training vessel could be too. As ropebag explained, and you again ignored - the potential for such a vessel as a practical and political tool for Ireland and the EU is really endless.

                    Would it be 100% owned by the NS? Or would it be owned by the Dept. of the Marine? Department of Enterprise? Or co-owned by all the above - with the DF allotted a guaranteed lift within XX days notification?

                    It's a discussion well worth having, not deliberately ignoring because the white paper says such and such.
                    Training needs are filled for NMCI by existing operational vessels (NS & civilian).

                    If we had the same contract as the UK has for the Point class, it would cost us €9.6m annually.

                    For the charter transport of the EUBG to the ex, is costs about €0.25m annually.

                    Which one is a better use of taxpayers money??

                    If there was demand for Irish routes / more ferries - the companies will put them on.

                    The MRV would replace an existing vessel at a cost of around €150m, so there is an extra cost of around €100m compared to replacing it with an OPV.

                    Compare a MRV with a PFI over 30 year life and see how much extra it would cost.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                      is there anything to suggest that the ad-hoc efforts of friendly countries aren't enough? is there an equipment issue whether the current vessels aren't built/equipped in such a way as to make RAS doable?

                      the politics aren't, i think a factor. they are undoubtedly an issue if a dozen RAF Chinooks go the the Glen to play, not i would suggest 5,000 miles away and so far from a crusty with a camera phone that they could be on the far side of the moon.

                      if RAS isn't going to take place in Dublin Bay, but in the middle of nowhere in the Med, or the Atlantic, then its simply not an issue - because no one will ever know...
                      I'm not aware of any ad hoc training with other units other than in flight refuelling of a Sea King with Eithne many years ago. Transferring stores and liquids at sea requires the fittings , rigging, and capability to accept fluids at the delivery rates of the supplying ships pumps. I'm not up to speed on the newer ships but was once surprised when trying to transfer fuel, inter ship in the basin, that it was a big palaver. Taking fuel was fine but pumping fuel to another ship took a bit of engineering. Transferring units overseas in peace time to standard ports is obviously cheaper by charter, my point is what do you do if you need to keep ships on station, out of range , for up to three months. Food would not be a problem but fuel could be.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        ..Taking fuel was fine but pumping fuel to another ship took a bit of engineering. Transferring units overseas in peace time to standard ports is obviously cheaper by charter, my point is what do you do if you need to keep ships on station, out of range , for up to three months. Food would not be a problem but fuel could be.
                        i'm not denying that RAS is essential, more that having one of handful of overseas capable vessels as a tanker/logs ship is tying up a lot of capability - moreover, within a European context tankers and logs ships are not in short supply and are always in attendance of these multinational missions anyway, and a single 90-110m OPV isn't going to put a strain on that.

                        to me, tying up €100m+ to just train for RAS is daft, far better to just swallow the pill and set up RAS training sessions with the friendly locals.

                        that said, like a decent LPD/Point class ship, a decent tanker/logs ship can be a deployable, political asset on its own - having an Irish vessel supporting a multinational op is a diplomatic win, you just need to work a bit harder on the PR so everyone knows its an Irish vessel keeping the op at sea.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          I'm not aware of any ad hoc training with other units other than in flight refuelling of a Sea King with Eithne many years ago. Transferring stores and liquids at sea requires the fittings , rigging, and capability to accept fluids at the delivery rates of the supplying ships pumps. I'm not up to speed on the newer ships but was once surprised when trying to transfer fuel, inter ship in the basin, that it was a big palaver. Taking fuel was fine but pumping fuel to another ship took a bit of engineering. Transferring units overseas in peace time to standard ports is obviously cheaper by charter, my point is what do you do if you need to keep ships on station, out of range , for up to three months. Food would not be a problem but fuel could be.
                          Hasn't there been some small scale training/demos of in harbour fuel transfers in the last couple of years? And again I think we are jumping the gun by a wide margin to suddenly be talking about replenishment, the NS has had 1 sustained out of EEZ deployment, with intentions to resume it (depending on political parties). But no party has displayed political will that would make such an out of EEZ commitment that would create a reason for a replenishment ship. I have no doubt that if we put forward a ship for Altanta operations we could use the supply ships already on station (if there is a question about ability for the ships to accept such replenishment that's a whole other question imo), without any complaint from said operation (whether USNS or one of the European supply ships).
                          Last edited by Sparky42; 23 February 2016, 14:05.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            i'm not denying that RAS is essential, more that having one of handful of overseas capable vessels as a tanker/logs ship is tying up a lot of capability - moreover, within a European context tankers and logs ships are not in short supply and are always in attendance of these multinational missions anyway, and a single 90-110m OPV isn't going to put a strain on that.

                            to me, tying up €100m+ to just train for RAS is daft, far better to just swallow the pill and set up RAS training sessions with the friendly locals.

                            that said, like a decent LPD/Point class ship, a decent tanker/logs ship can be a deployable, political asset on its own - having an Irish vessel supporting a multinational op is a diplomatic win, you just need to work a bit harder on the PR so everyone knows its an Irish vessel keeping the op at sea.
                            I suppose one problem we'd have if we went down that route of building up such an international capability, is the amount of screaming about "militarising the EU" and "German conscription" and all the other BS that we've seen before, I mean forget "investigating Shannon", if we resupplied a RN/French/USN warship that went on to blow the crap out of someone, I think we can all imagine the screaming fits from our looney idiots. As you said if we were willing to build up such a capability it could be well used international in supporting operations (and might even be a better way to support some operations than other minor supports we could give), but with the Triple Lock can we even be seen as a reliable partner for some operations?

                            There's also the question of what kind of ship we would be talking about if such a ship was ordered, I mean what's the current minimum size for such ships, what's the size of the planned New Zealand ship to replace Endeavour?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                              ...There's also the question of what kind of ship we would be talking about if such a ship was ordered, I mean what's the current minimum size for such ships, what's the size of the planned New Zealand ship to replace Endeavour?
                              this is all i could find, from here https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/m...upport-vessel/

                              The RfI calls for a ship capable of carrying 8,000t of ship fuel and a minimum of 1,700t of aviation fuel, a significant increase compared to the 150t now carried by Endeavour.

                              The ship must be able to operate medium-sized helicopters such as the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s SH-2G Seasprites and the new NH90s, with an option for operating a CH-47 Chinook. The Endeavour has not been able to support a maritime helicopter since the Seasprite replaced the smaller Westland Wasp in 1998.

                              The MPSC should have a minimum of 260 lane metres for vehicles, the capability for lift on/lift off operations up to 25t to transfer embarked cargo, and will carry two 65t landing craft. The ship’s performance requirements include a minimum 8,000nm range at 16kt and a top speed of 18kt. The ship should be able to operate from December to March in Antarctic waters as far south as the McMurdo Sounds.

                              The RfI stipulates a ship’s company of 70 and the ability to embark up to 50 passengers. For self-defence the MPSC will be equipped with an ‘appropriate number’ of manually operated .50cal heavy machine guns and/or space for a close in weapon system such as the Phalanx.

                              The MPSC is expected to have a minimum service life of 25 years.



                              what that means in tonnage terms i don't know...

                              the political issue is a long standing one that everyone else has just got used to - i'm afraid everyone knows that regardless iof what the IG promises, its quite possible that Irish units simply won't turn up due to the triple lock.

                              it just means pencilling in other units/assets to take their place, and yes, it massively undermines confidence in Ireland as a partner.

                              Comment


                              • RAS is essential is your operating far from friendly/unsafe ports.

                                Build in the capability to receive on the MRV (as well as increased endurance). The NS is never likely to be operating alone. On the Med mission, AFAIK the NS is on a different mission to all the other vessels that they co-operate on a daily basis with.

                                If a stores ship were to be purchased we could:
                                (a) make it ship 10/11 in the fleet
                                (b) look at a combined ETV / stores ship (unlikely to be possible) as ship 9
                                (c) go for a JSS in order to combine the OPV/sealift/stores ship as Eithne's replacement

                                Bear in mind if we are talking (c), your talking about min €400 million per ship!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X