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

  • #76
    All the vessels are multi-role, there abilities in some areas may be constrained but they are definitely multi-role. They are able to do most of the roles assigned to varying degrees.

    I absolutely agree that the OPVs need as a absolute minimum the ability to detect threats, the add onto that is passive defence, the higher end of what in an ideal world is active defence. The idea of a number of frigates type vessels able to conduct combat in all spheres is pie in the sky, the NS would become a 2 ship navy to pay for them (never mind man them).

    The NS sensors and weapons will of course feed into the threat assessment. If we are looking at a 10%+ chance of being engaged and we don't have suitable vessels - then preventative measures need to be taken (non-depoyment, keep xx miles offshore, deploy with other assets, etc).

    Let's remember how the DF is paying for the new ships - they aren't replacing people who are leaving and the wages aren't being increased (yet). In the case of the NS, operational outputs (ie ships going to sea) are effected by that.

    There isn't really a requirement IMHO to have 2 MRVs for operational and financial reasons. Crossover 131L is big enough, above that level and your wasting finite resources, and you have a better chance of it being properly equipped. You don't necessarily have to have it with an organic helo as you could operate with other partners.

    Inshore work with what the CPVs are for.
    Last edited by DeV; 11 April 2017, 13:45.

    Comment


    • #77
      The armament on the ns vessels are a realistic fit for vessels of their type and the threat level in Irish waters. Which is where they're supposed to serve, and are over kill for fisheries protection.

      Comment


      • #78
        Some of the posts here are total parody, like it or not and I'd join tomorrow, but we're not nato members, and there is no real maratime threat to Irish waters. The armament fit on the Opv compares well and often exceeds to other ships of their size and type in European nations.

        As for a bigger fleet, a reality check, were more than likely going to get a larger vessel that will be able to carry out hadr missions, not reenact ISO jima

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by paul g View Post
          As for a bigger fleet, a reality check, were more than likely going to get a larger vessel that will be able to carry out hadr missions, not reenact ISO jima
          I think you mean Iwo Jima where the Americans had over 450 ships and 60,000 marines, it would take one hell of a budget uplift for us to be able to re-enact that!
          The force included 17 carriers, 8 battleships, 16 cruisers and the rest a mix of destroyers and amphibious ships.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            I think you mean Iwo Jima where the Americans had over 450 ships and 60,000 marines, it would take one hell of a budget uplift for us to be able to re-enact that!
            The force included 17 carriers, 8 battleships, 16 cruisers and the rest a mix of destroyers and amphibious ships.
            ISO jima was a US seaborne replenishment mission where they delivered thousands of ISO containers to stretched US ground forces....
            Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

            Comment


            • #81
              Realism is planning to deal with asymmetric threats. Some years ago we were dealing with attempts at major arms smuggling from the middle east and the United States ,and also some drugs smuggling from the Caribbean. Such interdiction can only be carried out by a ship of state whose Crew are under Military discipline and whose officers are commissioned officers of that state. In Fishery protection , a vessel failing to stop , can be progressively fired on , to gain compliance by Main Armament. The only gloss on our armament are two 20mm and a group of 12.7mms. At this point in time anybody out there with a hand/shoulder fired ASM/ATkM is a major threat. We must counter modern threats at the required stand off ranges or we will one day be in deep doo doo.

              Comment


              • #82
                Look at the RNZN they are getting:

                A replenishment ship with hospital capability (2 beds role 1), freight capability (12 TEUs), small crew (64+), helo capability (including hanger for NH90), 2 RAS rigs and it is going to be an "Environship". It is also winterised and class 6 Antarctic capable. All that with minimal weapons for €323 million (the winterisation only accounts for around €42 million.

                They are also getting a "Littoral Ops Support Capability" vessel for diving & salvage, mine clearance, hydrographic survey and transporting up to 50 troops. It's based on a commercial offshore vessel with military capabilities in a medium threat environment (with minimalist weapons). It will have a moon pool, ROV and helo deck.

                Comment


                • #83
                  In the last few years the US has started to encounter drug smuggling subs. A few private people here in the home of the U-boat have for legal purposes built something rather high tech. In the cases someone had an alternative (South american) use could we detect and engage such an Objekt? Enjoy the video.http://youtu.be/zUUenrEwbRQ

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    In the last few years the US has started to encounter drug smuggling subs. A few private people here in the home of the U-boat have for legal purposes built something rather high tech. In the cases someone had an alternative (South american) use could we detect and engage such an Objekt? Enjoy the video.http://youtu.be/zUUenrEwbRQ
                    From memory the majority of those the US have encountered have been "semi submersible" rather than full up Subs, though without question there's strong movement towards that, however I have no idea if any of those designs would be feasible for TransAtlantic operations. As for solutions to detection, from memory there's been recent movement with ISO container mounted Towed Array's.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Manned Submersibles

                      Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      From memory the majority of those the US have encountered have been "semi submersible" rather than full up Subs, though without question there's strong movement towards that, however I have no idea if any of those designs would be feasible for TransAtlantic operations. As for solutions to detection, from memory there's been recent movement with ISO container mounted Towed Array's.
                      There is no reason, with training , why we couldn't operate manned coastal submersible craft , as well as ROV's. Naval Services can do most things , in every dimension , given the support and trust required. We can keep ships on station for up to 3 + months , unsupported from Base , carrying out it's assigned tasks , and sustaining thousands of migrants while in our care.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        There is no reason, with training , why we couldn't operate manned coastal submersible craft , as well as ROV's. Naval Services can do most things , in every dimension , given the support and trust required. We can keep ships on station for up to 3 + months , unsupported from Base , carrying out it's assigned tasks , and sustaining thousands of migrants while in our care.
                        I wasn't talking about us using them, I was talking about us stopping anyone using them (for whatever reason), that being said, I have no idea why you would want to waste budgets on manned coastal sub's? There's zero call for them, and I have no idea what being able to operate in the Med (out of Allied bases in permissive environments) has to do with the question.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          There is definitely a need for the deployment of ROVs for mine/CIED, ATCP, SAR etc

                          Whatever about macro subs/semi-subs, macro torpedoes have definitely come here
                          Last edited by DeV; 12 April 2017, 20:49.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            There is definitely a need for the deployment of ROVs for mine/CIED, ATCP, SAR etc
                            I totally agree with you in that regard, you've listed plenty of areas where they would benefit and for mine/CIED I'd see if we could start working with EUBG members to grow knowledge for the potential Peacock replacement class going forward. But manned Coastal subs don't make any sense to me.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Thing is it we get a MCMV as a CPV, it will be slow, small, lower level of armament and probably crammed

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Thing is it we get a MCMV as a CPV, it will be slow, small, lower level of armament and probably crammed
                                I suppose a couple of things, there's a newer vessels that are larger (some larger than the Peacock's), though certainly slower and the point about armament. I still have no idea exactly how it's suggested that a CPV can be an MCMV, however surely having some personnel assigned to current units would be beneficial in either trying to figure it out, or to understand that they won't mix?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X