Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  76
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 115
  1. #51
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    This is a quote of the article, though as you say it doesn't shed any light on the port/operational ratio's:

    The German's must be happy with the class though as they are adding an extra 5 hulls...
    Good to know, I have found the original report http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine...A0IEENH55IHGP4

    But again just as I said with the F125 it was not at sea for 500 days, it was deployed for 500 days, this is nothing new. We only have to look at what the old RN used to do, they deployed all over the world for 2 years at a time. But it means that your support functions also have to deploy, this would mean not just the crews would go out but also the necessary base personnel also.

  2. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  3. #52
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of the Trafalgar class SSN's did 10 months in the last few years, and i don't doubt others have done similar deployments since. HMS Clyde does several year deployments while based out of the FI - sticking a ship in the Med for 6 months should not be outwith the wit of man...

  4. Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #53
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    it would, if the P60's were much of an asset to the op - but no flight deck, and bugger all self-protection means that while they are by no means just a drain on resources and require protection, you're not going to have the force generation team (and the governments they are from, which if we're honest is one of the drivers in this..) leaping for joy and sticking money behind the bar.

    with an AOR on the other hand...
    Oh sure, if we are talking about a future hull that would make sense without question, I just meant in terms of what we actually have at the moment (ie if we were deploying tomorrow) then a P60 would make more sense to me of the hulls we have, I mean Eithne doesn't have any clear advantages with even the deck not usable.

  6. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  7. #54
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Good to know, I have found the original report
    But again just as I said with the F125 it was not at sea for 500 days, it was deployed for 500 days, this is nothing new. We only have to look at what the old RN used to do, they deployed all over the world for 2 years at a time. But it means that your support functions also have to deploy, this would mean not just the crews would go out but also the necessary base personnel also.
    While at the same time from memory the USN dropped such programs for crew swapping on the Burkes (seem to remember that the material state of the ship being used as a testbed ended up in a poorer condition compared to others) and they've abandoned it for the LCS program.

  8. #55
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the P60's for that given the crews that use the same design rather than the one off hull?
    Just an example

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The newest German ships the F125 Stabilisation Frigates are being design for 2 year deployment with 210 days each year at sea. This means that for 40% of the deployment time they will be in a port for maintenance/repairs/resupply.
    The NS fleet pre-economic crash were doing 210 patrol days annually, 28 days annual refit, they were out of the water for 2 weeks every 3 years or so. Not sure of the benefits (or not), but a lot of navies do refits lasting months (or longer!!) but are less frequent. The NS deployments are more or less permanent (or be it in home waters).

    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    it would, if the P60's were much of an asset to the op - but no flight deck, and bugger all self-protection means that while they are by no means just a drain on resources and require protection, you're not going to have the force generation team (and the governments they are from, which if we're honest is one of the drivers in this..) leaping for joy and sticking money behind the bar.
    again just using Eithne as an example

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    While at the same time from memory the USN dropped such programs for crew swapping on the Burkes (seem to remember that the material state of the ship being used as a testbed ended up in a poorer condition compared to others) and they've abandoned it for the LCS program.
    Whatever about the NS establishment, the NS strength isn't high enough

  9. #56
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Just an example



    The NS fleet pre-economic crash were doing 210 patrol days annually, 28 days annual refit, they were out of the water for 2 weeks every 3 years or so. Not sure of the benefits (or not), but a lot of navies do refits lasting months (or longer!!) but are less frequent. The NS deployments are more or less permanent (or be it in home waters).

    again just using Eithne as an example



    Whatever about the NS establishment, the NS strength isn't high enough
    The Naval establishments, because of ships, is made up of many special skilled trades to keep the ship running efficiently. Using back to back crews to keep a ship on station can lead to a gradual melt down of reliability due to long fingering a repair or leaving it to your relief hoping he might do it. Ships can be kept on station by partial crew reliefs , half and half, and also using an adjacent friendly port to carry out shut down repairs such as Valetta or even Gibraltar. The costs would largely be relief Air Fares unless a Casa type plane could be used. Valletta and Gibraltar have Dockyard facilities.

  10. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  11. #57
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    The RAN introduced their Armidale patrol boats with three crews per boat to keep up the tempo, then changed to one crew. Anyone know why?

  12. #58
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    The RAN introduced their Armidale patrol boats with three crews per boat to keep up the tempo, then changed to one crew. Anyone know why?
    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?

  13. #59
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The Naval establishments, because of ships, is made up of many special skilled trades to keep the ship running efficiently. Using back to back crews to keep a ship on station can lead to a gradual melt down of reliability due to long fingering a repair or leaving it to your relief hoping he might do it.
    On that note:

    http://aviationhumor.net/pilots-vs-m...nce-engineers/

  14. Likes sofa liked this post
  15. #60
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The Naval establishments, because of ships, is made up of many special skilled trades to keep the ship running efficiently. Using back to back crews to keep a ship on station can lead to a gradual melt down of reliability due to long fingering a repair or leaving it to your relief hoping he might do it. Ships can be kept on station by partial crew reliefs , half and half, and also using an adjacent friendly port to carry out shut down repairs such as Valetta or even Gibraltar. The costs would largely be relief Air Fares unless a Casa type plane could be used. Valletta and Gibraltar have Dockyard facilities.
    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.

  16. #61
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  17. #62
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  18. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  19. #63
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  20. Likes EUFighter, Turkey, restless, X-RayOne liked this post
  21. #64
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Naval service development

    Quote 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.

  22. Likes ibenji, EUFighter, Graylion liked this post
  23. #65
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 10th April 2017 at 16:17.

  24. #66
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  25. #67
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  26. Likes Graylion liked this post
  27. #68
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  28. #69
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  29. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  30. #70
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    265
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  31. Likes restless liked this post
  32. #71
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  33. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  34. #72
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    265
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  35. Likes Tempest liked this post
  36. #73
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  37. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  38. #74
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  39. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  40. #75
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •