Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Damen made an announcement recently that may fit the bill in a few Irish NS options.



    The Brochure is worth downloading, to see the deck TEU options for each type.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Shaqra View Post
      They can derogate from Open tender under Article 346 TFEU which refers to measures which a Member State “considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security” or to “information the disclosure of which it considers contrary” to those interests. The definition of their essential security interests is the sole responsibility of Member States. However they have to give detailed reasons for this and I'm not sure a "non/limited warry" PV would qualify.
      if we tendered for 5 P50s/P60s what's changed to justify it?

      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      For me we could make a comparison with the US Coast Guard which if we are honest is more like the Naval Service than any other organisation. In peacetime it may be Under the control of the Dept. of Homeland Security but in war it reverts back to the Dept. of Defence. The USCG has the "medium endurance cutter" which match the role and capability of the P50/60's so LPV's. Then they have the "high endurance cutter" which would be more along the lines of the EPV. The MRV roles is much better done by something like the BRP Tarlac, at least one with more SHP and automation and use it only for resupply/humanitarian missions

      Our patrol area has doubled in the past years due to the extension of our territorial waters Under the provisons of the extended continental shelf. As the old saying goes "nothing is for free" this extension also came with obilgations, and one is to police this area effectively. And we are stuck with it now as there is no way to give back this new won area to the UN! So the EPV will have to spend longer at sea, further from land. The latter point brings the added mission of having to be the provider of SAR in the area outside the reach of the S92's! So the need for a number of EPV's is still there even if we order more P61's. There should be a program to raise the number of vessels in the NS at least to 12 by 2022, along with all the implications that go with it. Longer term a fleet of 16+ should be the goal especially if operations out of area like the one in the Med become a regular feature (and I fear they will).

      Another 3 P61's (Flight II upgraded) would be a good addition allowing the replacement of the Peacock, naturally the existing P51's and P61's to be also upgraded. These can take care of the patrols out to 200nm, and missions such as MCM, pollution patrol etc.
      Then 4 EPV's to take the area out to the limits of our expanded territorial waters, only when these come online should the LE Eithne move to Dock 1 as a museum ship.
      A 10 ship navy would be a dream, we can afford to replace vessels never mind expand. And we don't have the personnel to man the ships we do have

      Originally posted by Herald View Post
      there's no way they'd allow themselves be hauled up before the PAC or some such for a €50m+
      Try €70m+ (That was the price tag based on 3 so it would be higher again).

      PAC wouldn't be a worry.... court would be

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        if we tendered for 5 P50s/P60s what's changed to justify it?...
        that for the forseeable future, the NS will be mounting a one Ship continuous deployment to the Med for 6 months a year?

        the EU legislation is clear, and its been proved many times that the crux of the tender/not tender issue is not whether you are at war or not, its simply whether you need something or not. every other country in the EU manages this process, what is so special about Ireland that it can't?

        who would take the government to court?

        Comment


        • The price of the P61's is interesting as Mr.Kenny gave the price as 54m, which is the same as Babcock's also give. However somehow they have ended up at more than 70m Euro each! That what you get when u but on pump!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Shaqra View Post
            They can derogate from Open tender under Article 346 TFEU which refers to measures which a Member State “considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security” or to “information the disclosure of which it considers contrary” to those interests. The definition of their essential security interests is the sole responsibility of Member States. However they have to give detailed reasons for this and I'm not sure a "non/limited warry" PV would qualify.
            Which could change with a phone call

            Ireland doesn't have a huge domestic defence industry to prop up


            Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            For me we could make a comparison with the US Coast Guard which if we are honest is more like the Naval Service than any other organisation. In peacetime it may be Under the control of the Dept. of Homeland Security but in war it reverts back to the Dept. of Defence. The USCG has the "medium endurance cutter" which match the role and capability of the P50/60's so LPV's. Then they have the "high endurance cutter" which would be more along the lines of the EPV. The MRV roles is much better done by something like the BRP Tarlac, at least one with more SHP and automation and use it only for resupply/humanitarian missions

            Our patrol area has doubled in the past years due to the extension of our territorial waters Under the provisons of the extended continental shelf. As the old saying goes "nothing is for free" this extension also came with obilgations, and one is to police this area effectively. And we are stuck with it now as there is no way to give back this new won area to the UN! So the EPV will have to spend longer at sea, further from land. The latter point brings the added mission of having to be the provider of SAR in the area outside the reach of the S92's! So the need for a number of EPV's is still there even if we order more P61's. There should be a program to raise the number of vessels in the NS at least to 12 by 2022, along with all the implications that go with it. Longer term a fleet of 16+ should be the goal especially if operations out of area like the one in the Med become a regular feature (and I fear they will).

            Another 3 P61's (Flight II upgraded) would be a good addition allowing the replacement of the Peacock, naturally the existing P51's and P61's to be also upgraded. These can take care of the patrols out to 200nm, and missions such as MCM, pollution patrol etc.
            Then 4 EPV's to take the area out to the limits of our expanded territorial waters, only when these come online should the LE Eithne move to Dock 1 as a museum ship.
            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
            that for the forseeable future, the NS will be mounting a one Ship continuous deployment to the Med for 6 months a year?

            the EU legislation is clear, and its been proved many times that the crux of the tender/not tender issue is not whether you are at war or not, its simply whether you need something or not. every other country in the EU manages this process, what is so special about Ireland that it can't?

            who would take the government to court?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              Which could change with a phone call

              Ireland doesn't have a huge domestic defence industry to prop up
              eh?

              i do wonder sometimes if either you are talking to people in your head, or if you read what you type. i'd bet good money that there is no one reading this thread who has the faintest idea what on earth these contributions are supposed to mean...

              Comment


              • There is currently no commitment to the med op beyond the end of 2016. Everything in the DF is fluid, 1 phone call can change everything so it isn't a guaranteed that commitment could end with immediate effect/be extended rapidly.

                You will find that those counties who don't tender, the contract is generally awarded to a domestically based contract who keep jobs locally, even if they are loss making, useless, have huge cost overruns et
                Last edited by DeV; 10 June 2016, 07:46.

                Comment


                • f the Eithne can be made sound for another 10 years, I would consider a makeover, including replacing machinery, and re-establishing her flight deck for at least land-ons, togetherwith radars and additional CIWS weapons.
                  Would probably make more sense to build a new vessel.

                  That Tender is done and dusted now, so one way or another there will need to be a seperate tender process to bring a 4th P60 on board, and theres no guarantee that that ship will be a carbon copy of the others as theres no gaurantee Babcock will be involved again.
                  From the rumblings after the SB debacle , I don't think the NS WANT Appledore / Babcock involved again

                  I think the NEXT ship will determine what we are, and where we are going, for the next thirty years!
                  I tend to agree, but if we move away from the P60 specific and continue of the thread of Large OPVs from another builder there may be more wriggle room.
                  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
                    ...I tend to agree, but if we move away from the P60 specific and continue of the thread of Large OPVs from another builder there may be more wriggle room.
                    the crux, i think, is whether another P60(ish), whether built by Babcock or by someone else is a vessel intended to fit in the current P60 fleet and its operations, or to take the NS in a new direction.

                    my own experience of the logitistics chain supporting equipment types is that each additional type you have to support, train for etc.. places a massive additional burden on the system, and that the new type has to be spectacular and the old type utterly shit, for it to be worth the operational impact of having to support two different types at the same time.

                    for all the grumbles, the P60's simply aren't remotely crap enough for it to be worth the logistics and budget drag of having an OPV fleet of 3 P60's and 1 P70, you'd simply be far better off accepting the less-than-ideals and enjoying the training, logistics, parts etc.. commonality you'd get from operating four P60's.

                    if however P70 is a 2 or 3 vessel class, helideck, decent capability upgrade in terms of weapons, sensors and comms, then it would be worth doing, but single ship classes are an appalling drag on resourses - they burn money, and given that they might only be at sea for half the time, that money burns and you get a lot less for it than you thought you were getting.

                    Comment


                    • I think the only caveat to that is: you could potentially share the same engines, radar, comms, ribs, 76mm etc. with a P71 as a P64 - but wind up with a vessel of substantially different capabilities: the extra equipment mooted in this thread is mostly in addition rather than replacement of existing gear.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        The price of the P61's is interesting as Mr.Kenny gave the price as 54m, which is the same as Babcock's also give. However somehow they have ended up at more than 70m Euro each! That what you get when u but on pump!

                        The TOTAL cost of €70 is made up of the €54 paid to Appledore plus the 23% paid in VAT and the cost of GFE

                        What about Article 61 of Directives 2004/18/EC which states that
                        “Awarding of additional works to the concessionaire
                        This Directive shall not apply to additional works not included in the concession project initially considered or in the initial contract but which have, through unforeseen circumstances, become necessary for the performance of the work described therein, which the contracting authority has awarded to the concessionaire, on condition that the award is made to the economic operator performing such work
                        — when such additional works cannot be technically or economically separated from the initial contract without major inconvenience to the contracting authorities, or
                        — when such works, although separable from the performance of the initial contract, are strictly necessary for its completion.
                        However, the aggregate value of contracts awarded for additional works may not exceed 50 % of the amount of the original works concession contract.”


                        As the cost of the original contract for 2 plus option was over €150 they could be allowed go for a 4th P60.

                        Comment


                        • my own experience of the logitistics chain supporting equipment types is that each additional type you have to support, train for etc.. places a massive additional burden on the system, and that the new type has to be spectacular and the old type utterly shit, for it to be worth the operational impact of having to support two different types at the same time.
                          The NS have been there for years..... Three of the four P20a had the same engines, the fourth Deirdre was a completely differnt vessel, all while serving with Ton Class minesweepers, then throw in Eithen where you had four types serving at the one time, while leaving Setanta and Ferdia out of the mix.

                          In more recent years, Niamh and Roisin, Eithne, and again 3 PVs along side two peacocks and then add the P61s... mixed bag indeed.

                          Eithne being the single class that you refer to.....

                          So the pitfalls are quite significant but nothing the NS haven't done on some scale before.

                          But it is a factor but shouldn't be an excuse not to move away from a supplier if a better product can be found
                          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                          Comment


                          • P70 Holland Class

                            I know we want to keep the name Holland for the ever so slight chance we get a sub (maybe we name a ROV after him).

                            I have adapted the Damen Holland class ocean patrol vessel with a cheaper set of sensors rather than the IM400 integrated mast (each cost 35-45m€) Also from the debate about upgrading the P51/P61's I have added a similar fit. Naturally the Phalanx could be rotated between ship going out of area on deployment.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	P71_Holland.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	362.5 KB
ID:	698081

                            I know some see an Offshore Supply vessel as an option but I would rather a proper warship, cost pint should be around 90m€, for the optional MH60 Seahawk the current flyaway price is $38.5m for the R version and $25.1m for the S version.

                            Comment


                            • The UK does not charge any VAT on ships, the first 2 vessels cost €99m for Appledore plus €7.8m for GFE, making a unit price of €53.4m so the €54m for P63 is the total.
                              If we are charging ourselves VAT I hope the DoD can claim it back.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                I know we want to keep the name Holland for the ever so slight chance we get a sub (maybe we name a ROV after him).

                                I have adapted the Damen Holland class ocean patrol vessel with a cheaper set of sensors rather than the IM400 integrated mast (each cost 35-45m€) Also from the debate about upgrading the P51/P61's I have added a similar fit. Naturally the Phalanx could be rotated between ship going out of area on deployment.

                                [ATTACH]8271[/ATTACH]

                                I know some see an Offshore Supply vessel as an option but I would rather a proper warship, cost pint should be around 90m€, for the optional MH60 Seahawk the current flyaway price is $38.5m for the R version and $25.1m for the S version.
                                I like your rendition EU....Wouldn't the cheaper sensor fit free up space internally?.........As it's a more "fighty" HPV like Eithne perhaps it should be designated P32?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X