Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how big/small should the NS be?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Could be because the rode those hulls into the ground already? Seem to remember apart from material defects (think one compartment had to be ruled off limits during operations due to poisonous leaks, don't know if they fixed that), the decision in regards to intercepting refugee boats meant the sea time was increased substantially.

    Haven't they started the replacement program for those hulls already?
    They plans to replace them together with the MCMV'S and some other Hydrographic survey ships with a New class upto 2000T. The Damen OPV2-1800 is one of the shortlisted designs.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      They plans to replace them together with the MCMV'S and some other Hydrographic survey ships with a New class upto 2000T. The Damen OPV2-1800 is one of the shortlisted designs.
      Yeah, not helped when they had one of them burn to the ground during a refit, always did think the design size was too light/small for the job they had to do, thought they would have got better value going for something like the NZ OPV and spam them instead.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
        From memory that's what the USN found doing "Sea Swap" with the Burkes, however it does seem that the German's think they can do it without significant impacts.
        They're Germans. The Germans could time an orgasm. The only people more German than the Germans are the Swiss. And they wont be making any naval breakthroughs soon.

        Comment


        • #64
          Naval service development

          Originally posted by expat01 View Post
          They're Germans. The Germans could time an orgasm. The only people more German than the Germans are the Swiss. And they wont be making any naval breakthroughs soon.
          While deciding how to sustain ships at sea, we must also consider the future composition and tasking of the Naval Service. Is it time that some ships should be fitted as Surface Combat Ships? We have six major units that have limited hot roles but little for Defending and Protecting either our home waters or those far afield.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            While deciding how to sustain ships at sea, we must also consider the future composition and tasking of the Naval Service. Is it time that some ships should be fitted as Surface Combat Ships? We have six major units that have limited hot roles but little for Defending and Protecting either our home waters or those far afield.
            TBH I think we'd have the equivalent of a "Panzerschiff debate"(*) if we were to go for combatants. I'd leave combatants to our allies and work on support units. I maintain the idea of the AOR.


            (*) The big debate in Germany in the 1920s before the 3 Deutschland class cruisers were ordered
            Last edited by Graylion; 10 April 2017, 17:17.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              TBH I think we'd have the equivalent of a "Panzerschiff debate"(*) if we were to go for combatants. I'd leave combatants to our allies and work on support units. I maintain the idea of the AOR.


              (*) The big debate in Germany in the 1920s before the 3 Deutschland class cruisers were ordered
              There is a push , currently, for us to participate in EURFORNAV in the Red Sea/ Horn of Africa area. The ships types mentioned within the combined EU organised Fleet are Surface Combat vessels, Helicopter ships, ships with flight decks, and LPD type vessels as Flag Ship.
              If we had armed our current ships to 30mm in the after sector, included suitable high speed target detection radar, together with more 76mm versatility, then we could happily play in the higher leagues. I support a modern version of the Italian San Giusto and reduce landing craft to four.

              Comment


              • #67
                Well we need vessels capable of the assigned roles. Like it or not the vast majority of those roles require minimal armament. The NS need multi role hulls, which are capable of operating in some of the roughest waters in the world.

                Ever more importantly they must retain personnel in order to put those ships to sea!

                I'm not suggesting that the main armament of a vessel is a border team with 9mm's but we have to be realistic!

                If we cannot afford to give decent enough pay and conditions to retain personnel so that vessels can complete their peacetime roles it make zero sense to spend a shed load of money purchasing hoverships with rail cannons because (a) they will not have the utility to complete the day to day taskings and (b) they won't put to see because we don't have the personnel.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  There is a push , currently, for us to participate in EURFORNAV in the Red Sea/ Horn of Africa area. The ships types mentioned within the combined EU organised Fleet are Surface Combat vessels, Helicopter ships, ships with flight decks, and LPD type vessels as Flag Ship.
                  If we had armed our current ships to 30mm in the after sector, included suitable high speed target detection radar, together with more 76mm versatility, then we could happily play in the higher leagues. I support a modern version of the Italian San Giusto and reduce landing craft to four.
                  Not necessarily a push for the NS to be deployed. At the minute EUNAVFOR Somalia consists of 1 X LPD, 1 X Frigate and MRAs

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    Well we need vessels capable of the assigned roles. Like it or not the vast majority of those roles require minimal armament. The NS need multi role hulls, which are capable of operating in some of the roughest waters in the world.

                    Ever more importantly they must retain personnel in order to put those ships to sea!

                    I'm not suggesting that the main armament of a vessel is a border team with 9mm's but we have to be realistic!

                    If we cannot afford to give decent enough pay and conditions to retain personnel so that vessels can complete their peacetime roles it make zero sense to spend a shed load of money purchasing hoverships with rail cannons because (a) they will not have the utility to complete the day to day taskings and (b) they won't put to see because we don't have the personnel.
                    I think you've got three different and important points there.
                    Agreed, we can't talk about multi crew ships if you barely have one crew per vessel to start with.
                    Our current role is fishery protection/ policing in rough waters and the vessels are armed for that.
                    If we need multi-role vessels, we don't have them. Our vessels are armed for the single role you have defined and cannot venture towards hostile environments without better equipped vessels to protect them or even detect the danger.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      The role of the Naval service is not actually Fishery Protection that is the role of the "Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority" who delegate currently the at-sea role to the Naval Service.

                      The role of the Naval Service as given on the official website is as follows: "Defence roles include defending territorial seas, deterring intrusive or aggressive acts, conducting maritime surveillance, maintaining an armed naval presence, ensuring right of passage, protecting marine assets and contributing to a blockade if required. The Naval Service must also be capable of supporting Army operations by sea lift and close naval support."

                      That the government has expanded this to include out-of-area operations such as Operation Pontus, however as we have seen with the issue of extra payments the government expects to get this extra role for "free". However now those who has served will get that extra pay and as one of the reason given was "The payment takes into account the constant threat of bombardment as naval ships neared the hostile Libyan coast.".

                      And I do not hopefully need to go into the situation around the Horn of Africa, UAE ship hit, US destroyer attacked etc. The point is if we are going to send ships into war zones and even if there has been no classical "declaration of war" they are war zone, then we need to protect those vessels. We are not talking about "Pocket Battleships" or "rail guns" but about putting a minimum of self-protection onto our naval vessels. This means a sensor upgrade active and passive to alert of any possible threat and then a means to defend against it. If we do not do this then we have no place sending personnel and ships on missions to such areas no matter how high the humanitarian need is. Therefore no matter what number or types of ships we have they must be equipped for the missions they are been sent on.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        And I do not hopefully need to go into the situation around the Horn of Africa, UAE ship hit, US destroyer attacked etc. The point is if we are going to send ships into war zones and even if there has been no classical "declaration of war" they are war zone, then we need to protect those vessels. We are not talking about "Pocket Battleships" or "rail guns" but about putting a minimum of self-protection onto our naval vessels. This means a sensor upgrade active and passive to alert of any possible threat and then a means to defend against it. If we do not do this then we have no place sending personnel and ships on missions to such areas no matter how high the humanitarian need is. Therefore no matter what number or types of ships we have they must be equipped for the missions they are been sent on.
                        Exactly a view I would support. On the current mission there was invasion of space by Libyan unidentified units. There is plenty of danger out there and it is our duty to take situations and contingencies into account for all missions. There is a belief , by some , that "we could do that" , as part of the deterrent mission off The Horn of Africa. I,m not so sure due to ship design , freeboard , and layout.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          To get back to the question of the size of a future NS, taking into account the primary missions of the Naval Service as set out by the Naval Service itself, the role it has supporting the SFPA and the humanitarian missions the government wants to send ship on then there are too few ships and personnel.

                          As a minimum 2 MRV such as the Crossover 131 Combatant or Absalon Class with associated helicopter either MH60 or NH90. Two is the absolute minimum to have one available at all time, better would 3-4. These would cover the combatant part of the NS mission, provide a better platform for humanitarian support and be able to lift and support the army (better a marine battalion/company).

                          The current P50/P60's cover most of the home water missions although a sensor suite upgrade along with a modern C3 system would be necessary. 2 more hulls to add to the current fleet would balance up the offshore contingent well. The provision to be able to mount a CIWS would be necessary if they are to be also used in "semi-hot deployment". This means that they do not need to carry a CIWS all the time but could rotate when necessary. Also we should see the purchase of different container mounted mission systems such as MCM. There is the provision on the P60's for this but we do need to get the mission modules.

                          One area that is often overlooked is the inshore mission with the standard excuse of the weather and that we need o big boats! This is true for offshore but the inshore and especially the area between us and the UK does not always require a 2000t ship. When the UK leaves the EU this will be come a major mission area and as the vessels that are of interest will be less than 500t (fishing boats, pleasure craft, smugglers) we should also consider having some smaller vessels 500t-700t to patrol these waters. Two could be based in Dublin and 2 in Rosslare.

                          As already noted above the investment is not limited to ships but also aircraft, for the MRV if we get 3 then we will need 6-8 MH60/NH90 helicopters to enable them to reach their full potential. The same goes for MPA's, today we have two part-time MPA's as they also have to do the air transport role. If we are serious then we need 4-6 MPA's just to keep a constant surveillance going. Two should be equipped for ASW as currently we have nothing to track submarines transiting in our waters, or the dragging of a trawler to the depths.

                          Now how to pay for this, well best would be an establishment and budget uplift to cover it. But if not then we need to have a major shift in our defence posture, away from land towards the sea. As we have discussed elsewhere there is no land threat to the state and we rely upon the sea and air channels for our well being. Therefore the NS should become the primary service in the DF with the Air Corp supporting the NS more than the Army. The Army itself should be reduced to 1/3 of the defence budget, to better balance the different services. This would most likely mean a reduction to 2 battalions rather than 2 brigades but if we are serious we must set priorities. I would not like to see the Army further reduced but if the politicians are unwilling to increase spending to the necessary levels then they should have the balls to make the right allocations.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            I think you've got three different and important points there.
                            Agreed, we can't talk about multi crew ships if you barely have one crew per vessel to start with.
                            Our current role is fishery protection/ policing in rough waters and the vessels are armed for that.
                            If we need multi-role vessels, we don't have them. Our vessels are armed for the single role you have defined and cannot venture towards hostile environments without better equipped vessels to protect them or even detect the danger.

                            The vessels are actually over armed for pure fisheries protection.

                            Marine Scotland's ships for example dont carry any arms

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The Scottish Fishery Protection Agency ( SFPA ) have the available weight of the RN for PROTECT and DEFEND. We are an element of the Defence Forces and as such need to be prepared to also Defend , Protect , and support. FP is a chapter in our overall role. Our overall problem is where next with expansion , capacity , and capability. Do we need more room , another base, and more modern firepower and associated systems.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by paul g View Post
                                The vessels are actually over armed for pure fisheries protection.

                                Marine Scotland's ships for example dont carry any arms
                                Though the RN Rivers which also do Fisheries are armed to some degree, so it all depends on the nation/force I suppose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X