Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Hmm. So the shape and capabilities of an EPV will, in fact, be a political statement by whatever government approves it regarding the direction of Ireland's defence policy regarding international cooperation. Even if it's called the LE UN Missions Only, it'll be a statement. Because the kind of EPV being talked about is beyond the needs of Irish territorial patrols. Indeed, I suggest that anything with 250m lane capacity is never going to be primarily a patrol vessel. It's a vessel that can also patrol. Hence the talk about a 9 ship flotilla.
    PS let the crusties whine. The state has already proved willing to ignore them. As it should.
    Last edited by expat01; 23 February 2016, 15:24.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
      PS let the crusties whine. The state has already proved willing to ignore them. As it should.
      Yes and No, that Whining played a role in us ending up with the Triple Lock, if we went with a NS dedicated to international operations with the current widespread public view, we're more than likely going to end up with some more issues come the next EU Referendum at best. At worst with SF possibly being the lead opposition, those Crusties are likely to have a much larger megaphone IMO.

      Comment


      • The NS is and will always be primarily focuses on Irish seas and the tasks associated with that.

        The NS is responsible for policing 800,000 km2 of water, that is the equivalent of 1 slow armed Garda car being responsible for the whole island (and some).

        Ireland is a major transshipment point for drugs coming into Europe.

        UNODC estimates that between the NS, Customs and Gardai (on land and at sea), they are only seizing 3% of heroin coming into Ireland.

        We have the worst seas in the world and they are getting worse.

        That is way we need more and bigger vessels, anything after that is added capability
        Last edited by DeV; 23 February 2016, 18:08.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
          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.
          If we had the same contract as the UK has for the point class we would also have numerous dependencies in the south atlantic that needed frequent resupply.
          There isn't just EUBG. UNIFIL and UNPROFOR also require resupply. There was a time when the NS resupplied UNIFIL annually. Someone else must be doing it now, but the vehicles out there still need parts, and the troops there still need supplies. Someone has to be doing it, the question is could we do it, and other things with a suitable vessel.

          How about this then.

          Type 404 Elbe class support ships, usually act as mother ship to submarine or fast attack craft.
          Can carry:
          24 standard TEU Containers(maximum)
          Supplies:
          700 m³ fuel
          60 m³ aviation (helicopter) fuel
          280 m³ fresh water
          160 tonnes ammunition
          40 tonnes supplies

          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
            If we had the same contract as the UK has for the point class we would also have numerous dependencies in the south atlantic that needed frequent resupply.
            There isn't just EUBG. UNIFIL and UNPROFOR also require resupply. There was a time when the NS resupplied UNIFIL annually. Someone else must be doing it now, but the vehicles out there still need parts, and the troops there still need supplies. Someone has to be doing it, the question is could we do it, and other things with a suitable vessel.

            How about this then.

            Type 404 Elbe class support ships, usually act as mother ship to submarine or fast attack craft.
            Can carry:
            24 standard TEU Containers(maximum)
            Supplies:
            700 m³ fuel
            60 m³ aviation (helicopter) fuel
            280 m³ fresh water
            160 tonnes ammunition
            40 tonnes supplies
            I'm presuming that Germany isn't planning to sell any of them, so are we suggesting that we should try to build a 20 year old design? I would guess that updates would be required (does the design meet the international standards for their fuel tanks for example?)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
              If we had the same contract as the UK has for the point class we would also have numerous dependencies in the south atlantic that needed frequent resupply.
              There isn't just EUBG. UNIFIL and UNPROFOR also require resupply. There was a time when the NS resupplied UNIFIL annually. Someone else must be doing it now, but the vehicles out there still need parts, and the troops there still need supplies. Someone has to be doing it, the question is could we do it, and other things with a suitable vessel.

              How about this then.

              Type 404 Elbe class support ships, usually act as mother ship to submarine or fast attack craft.
              Can carry:
              24 standard TEU Containers(maximum)
              Supplies:
              700 m³ fuel
              60 m³ aviation (helicopter) fuel
              280 m³ fresh water
              160 tonnes ammunition
              40 tonnes supplies

              Not necessarily but it does give an indication of the cost.

              The P21s did, with a Panhard aft (no room for TEUs), the P50s can carry Nissans aft (or I think 2 TEUs), the P60s can carry 3 TEUs. Niamh did a resupply to Eriteria and another vessel did Beruit

              When LE Elbe goes to support the next DF overseas mission, where equipment has to be landed it has the same limitations as a reduced armament Albsalon. Can't land equipment over the beach and limited armament to defend itself.

              IMHO an Absalon type vessel would be better utilised and offer better VFM.
              Last edited by DeV; 23 February 2016, 23:28.

              Comment


              • We are a maritime-orientated high-end design house and technical consulting firm. We design. We guide. We protect. We sustain. We train. We transform.


                Interesting

                Comment


                • Niamh did a resupply to Eriteria and another vessel did
                  Eithne was supposed to go, even had the flight deck fitted with tie downs, never did get to go.
                  Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                    Eithne was supposed to go, even had the flight deck fitted with tie downs, never did get to go.
                    Eriteria or Beruit?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      Eriteria or Beruit?
                      I think hptmurphy is talking about Liberia.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                        Eithne was supposed to go, even had the flight deck fitted with tie downs, never did get to go.
                        NIAMH brought supplies to eritrea as part of the Asian Deployment in 2002, she didn't go specifically to Eritrea. In 2003 however, she specifically went to Liberia with the DF Recce Mission, deploying the team and vehicles to Monrovia & supporting them.

                        EITHNE was due to commence resupply runs to Liberia, however pulled at the last minute, when it was realised that they would have to charter planes for troops heading home on leave. To cover this cost, the charter was arranged for cargo out, personnel home, etc. So ended the NS support to Liberia.

                        However, the DF saw the benefit of naval support in the form of the Dutch LPD, whose medical / surgical team saved the lives of the ARW pers injured in the crash that saw the loss of Sgt Mooney, RIP.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                          Yes and No, that Whining played a role in us ending up with the Triple Lock, if we went with a NS dedicated to international operations with the current widespread public view, we're more than likely going to end up with some more issues come the next EU Referendum at best. At worst with SF possibly being the lead opposition, those Crusties are likely to have a much larger megaphone IMO.
                          I think that's less to do with the crusties, who will always want the army binned, than with the general electorate who have grown up on a diet of morally superior Irish neutrality, abetted by governments which have always pandered to that sentiment. The last two governments have subtly changed the narrative. To quote myself, it's a case of slowly boiling the Irish frog. I'll bet the question of NATO or at least participation in a common EU defence will be floated two governments from now. Unless it's a sinn Fein government.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            I think that's less to do with the crusties, who will always want the army binned, than with the general electorate who have grown up on a diet of morally superior Irish neutrality, abetted by governments which have always pandered to that sentiment. The last two governments have subtly changed the narrative. To quote myself, it's a case of slowly boiling the Irish frog. I'll bet the question of NATO or at least participation in a common EU defence will be floated two governments from now. Unless it's a sinn Fein government.
                            I could almost Bet my house on it being proposed Expat....I for one would not support joining NATO or any other Block (unless it was an armed Neutrality Block) NATO is primarily a "State funded consumer" for various Armaments industrial corporations. (anyone with an interest in this has simply to "follow the money" to see it for themselves)
                            Whether or not Neutrality is "morally superior" or not is a personal viewpoint but it proved extremely beneficial to Ireland .....Of course if we had joined in the fun with other neutrals (including the USA) we would now be the most convenient US aircraft carrier in Europe....Ugh!

                            Comment


                            • EPV'S and NATO???

                              Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
                              I could almost Bet my house on it being proposed Expat....I for one would not support joining NATO or any other Block (unless it was an armed Neutrality Block) NATO is primarily a "State funded consumer" for various Armaments industrial corporations. (anyone with an interest in this has simply to "follow the money" to see it for themselves)
                              Whether or not Neutrality is "morally superior" or not is a personal viewpoint but it proved extremely beneficial to Ireland .....Of course if we had joined in the fun with other neutrals (including the USA) we would now be the most convenient US aircraft carrier in Europe....Ugh!
                              NATO is not primarily the things you say. There is sufficient data available to read and digest it's history. Returning to EPV requirements, any advance in our logistic, humanitarian , austere troop movement, capabilities would enhance our potential for sole and participatory missions. The vessel would need defensive and support weapons such as twin and single 30mm controlled mounts and also the usual 20mm , 12.5mm , and LMG's. The vessel would be designed for Port discharge and have a capability of also landing personnel by LCP.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
                                I could almost Bet my house on it being proposed Expat....I for one would not support joining NATO or any other Block (unless it was an armed Neutrality Block) NATO is primarily a "State funded consumer" for various Armaments industrial corporations. (anyone with an interest in this has simply to "follow the money" to see it for themselves)
                                Whether or not Neutrality is "morally superior" or not is a personal viewpoint but it proved extremely beneficial to Ireland .....Of course if we had joined in the fun with other neutrals (including the USA) we would now be the most convenient US aircraft carrier in Europe....Ugh!
                                Any block implies membership fees. This equals money for some armaments industrial corporation somewhere, whether it is Boeing or Kalashnikov Concern. The only country that doesn't provide money to some armaments company is Utopia.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X