Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • 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.
    Again, you take the most narrow imaginable interpretation of the point to suit your own narrative.

    So let's play your game: €250,000 for 30 years is €7.5 Million. How does spending up to an extra €100 million on a sealift capable MRV, which will spend at least 95% of its time as an OPV, constitute good value for money if you measure it in such narrow terms?

    It doesn't. The only thing that's VFM if you're looking at it in those terms is another OPV and keep hiring ferries.

    But you've got to weigh up all the possible benefits.

    Given that we're an island nation, I think an independent national civilian/mil sealift capability is borderline priceless - however I'm not advocating for Irish Shipping Part Deux. It's simply that the potential for such a vessel to be used as a vehicle for humanitarian, trade & military operations is vast, as are the political and economic implications.

    Despite being a person who wants to see the IAC develop an overseas capability and become more army support orientated - if it's a choice between one C130J or a sealift vessel, I'll go with the sealift.

    Getting back on to the MRV concept itself - I recall someone here posting a very interesting link on ship design considerations a few years back. What stands out in my memory, is how the costs began to spiral once a vessel became a certain size and it was designed to hit higher speeds. Can anyone link to it or comment? I'm just wondering about the consequences of trying to get a sealift vessel to hit 24kts+ (I'm aware that it's going to patrol a lot slower than that, but you still have to install the capability)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by expat01 View Post
      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.
      Hi Expat...I can find nothing to disagree with in your post above......A simple "like" would have sufficed.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pym View Post
        Getting back on to the MRV concept itself - I recall someone here posting a very interesting link on ship design considerations a few years back. What stands out in my memory, is how the costs began to spiral once a vessel became a certain size and it was designed to hit higher speeds. Can anyone link to it or comment? I'm just wondering about the consequences of trying to get a sealift vessel to hit 24kts+ (I'm aware that it's going to patrol a lot slower than that, but you still have to install the capability)
        I don't know what link that was but I think there's a clear if absurd demonstration of design spirals for higher speeds, the USN LCS program, which has the same engines (MT30's) as the RN QE class just to get them up to their design speed of 40+ knots.

        Are there any current Amphibs that hit 24+ kts? I mean the USN San Antonio class is above 22 kts, the Dokdo class hits 23kts max, while the Endurance is only in the mid teens, the Rotterdam (an Enforcer class) is 19 knots max. Are their any realistic current design that would meet those speeds that we would look at?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
          I don't know what link that was but I think there's a clear if absurd demonstration of design spirals for higher speeds, the USN LCS program, which has the same engines (MT30's) as the RN QE class just to get them up to their design speed of 40+ knots.

          Are there any current Amphibs that hit 24+ kts? I mean the USN San Antonio class is above 22 kts, the Dokdo class hits 23kts max, while the Endurance is only in the mid teens, the Rotterdam (an Enforcer class) is 19 knots max. Are their any realistic current design that would meet those speeds that we would look at?
          i rather think its a Laws of Hydrodynamics thing - firstly the longer and thinner a ship is the faster it will go, and thin makes a shit carrying capacity, but that the deffinition of Amphibs is wide, shallow and with a sharply cut off rear end for either a ramp or well deck - all of which have the same effect on speed as taking a large hammer to the engines.

          for me, its either or in one vessel. by all means go for an OPV+ and a littoral/sealift/amphib, but to try to put both capabilities in one ship will lead to a slow, lightly armed, short ranged OPV with bugger all carrying capacity, little delivery ability and a budget over-run to rival the F-35 programme!

          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!
            Given we have been a in military back water since the end of WW2 joining NATO is probably the only way we will ever progress from being a home waters based navy.

            I'm neither for or against it but the reality is our DF, NS included were starved of funding and equipment that would have put us in line with all the concepts spoken of here, the wishlist so to speak would have been fulfilled many years ago.
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            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!
              " Armed Neutrality Block " Would that be an Irish solution to an cowards problem
              Last edited by sofa; 24 February 2016, 22:26.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by sofa View Post
                " Armed Neutrality Block " Would that be an Irish solution to an cowards problem
                Maybe ask the Swedes what we'd need to invest to have some "Armed Neutrality"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pym View Post
                  Again, you take the most narrow imaginable interpretation of the point to suit your own narrative.

                  So let's play your game: €250,000 for 30 years is €7.5 Million. How does spending up to an extra €100 million on a sealift capable MRV, which will spend at least 95% of its time as an OPV, constitute good value for money if you measure it in such narrow terms?

                  It doesn't. The only thing that's VFM if you're looking at it in those terms is another OPV and keep hiring ferries.

                  But you've got to weigh up all the possible benefits.

                  Given that we're an island nation, I think an independent national civilian/mil sealift capability is borderline priceless - however I'm not advocating for Irish Shipping Part Deux. It's simply that the potential for such a vessel to be used as a vehicle for humanitarian, trade & military operations is vast, as are the political and economic implications.

                  Despite being a person who wants to see the IAC develop an overseas capability and become more army support orientated - if it's a choice between one C130J or a sealift vessel, I'll go with the sealift.

                  Getting back on to the MRV concept itself - I recall someone here posting a very interesting link on ship design considerations a few years back. What stands out in my memory, is how the costs began to spiral once a vessel became a certain size and it was designed to hit higher speeds. Can anyone link to it or comment? I'm just wondering about the consequences of trying to get a sealift vessel to hit 24kts+ (I'm aware that it's going to patrol a lot slower than that, but you still have to install the capability)
                  Ah but compare it to a PFI at €10m annually for 30 years

                  A PFI vessel also would be highly likely to be operated on a more lucrative route than Ireland/UK/France

                  Absalon's max speed is 24 kts

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    Ah but compare it to a PFI at €10m annually for 30 years


                    Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    Absalon's max speed is 24 kts
                    Yes, but to do that it has 16.6MW of engine power versus 10.8MW on the P60's - the question is, what does that cost in terms of fuel etc.
                    Last edited by pym; 24 February 2016, 23:08.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pym View Post




                      Yes, but to do that it has 16.6MW of engine power versus 10.8MW on the P60's - the question is, what does that cost in terms of fuel etc.
                      Ah but those engines don't have to running all the time

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        Ah but those engines don't have to running all the time
                        Give me patience.

                        So Dev is it going to cost the same for an Abalon to patrol at 17kts as the P60's?

                        Comment


                        • V = 1.34 the square route of the waterline length = hull speed

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pym View Post
                            Give me patience.

                            So Dev is it going to cost the same for an Abalon to patrol at 17kts as the P60's?
                            Did I say that!?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
                              Hi Expat...I can find nothing to disagree with in your post above......A simple "like" would have sufficed.
                              Not when I like to see myself in print. But have a like anyway. Although I want to see Ireland in NATO.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                V = 1.34 the square route of the waterline length = hull speed
                                For further information, about ships and speed. With standard immersed hulls, ships speed is largely governed by Froude's Rules for a given waterline length. This means that a 296ft ship with the required HP will do a MAX of 23 Knots in a compatible seaway. To make ships or boats go faster, you must alter the hull, so that the vessel can plane. In the case of the USN LCS ships,they designed them as HSS catamaran type hulls.
                                Warships do not spend their time at high speed, as they must loiter, proceed slowly for long periods, and manoeuvre for many reasons. Engineering solutions must be provided for slow running and light loading. When we talk about ships of 24knots or more we must look at Hulls of 325ft and above with beams of 46ft and above.
                                The RN have used many unusual ships for Caribbean and other patrol duties. Size needn't be a limiting factor in most cases. Overall fleet capability is the more important factor. Advice to young leaders is always THINK WISELY- PLAN BOLDLY-and when the need rises ACT SWIFTLY.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X