Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  76
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 115
  1. #76
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 11th April 2017 at 13:45.

  2. #77
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,031
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  3. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, The real Jack liked this post
  4. #78
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,031
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  5. Thanks DeV, danno thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, The real Jack, Sparky42 liked this post
  6. #79
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  7. #80
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  8. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  9. #81
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  10. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  11. #82
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  12. Likes Graylion liked this post
  13. #83
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  14. Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #84
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    938
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  16. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  17. #85
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Manned Submersibles

    Quote 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.

  18. #86
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    938
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes The real Jack, DeV liked this post
  20. #87
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 12th April 2017 at 20:49.

  21. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  22. #88
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    938
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  23. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  24. #89
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thing is it we get a MCMV as a CPV, it will be slow, small, lower level of armament and probably crammed

  25. #90
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    938
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?

  26. #91
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    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?
    Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

    Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs

  27. #92
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    938
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

    Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs
    I'm not arguing that we need or will get CPV's, I'm wondering how when you look at the specs of MCMV's (which don't lend themselves to the CPV role) the idea has come about that we can fit something like the CPV's with the capability. Though the other question I guess I have is are there any current/near future designs on the market that meet the CPV spec (speed, tonnage, 76mm)?

  28. #93
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

    Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs
    Do we need CPVs? Has much of the work traditionally done by CPVs now done by other agencies? Can the remaining CPV Naval work be done by OPVs with longer range RhIBs?
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  29. Likes ias liked this post
  30. #94
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    I'm not arguing that we need or will get CPV's, I'm wondering how when you look at the specs of MCMV's (which don't lend themselves to the CPV role) the idea has come about that we can fit something like the CPV's with the capability. Though the other question I guess I have is are there any current/near future designs on the market that meet the CPV spec (speed, tonnage, 76mm)?
    you suggested that a CPV can be a MCMV

    I disagree

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Do we need CPVs? Has much of the work traditionally done by CPVs now done by other agencies? Can the remaining CPV Naval work be done by OPVs with longer range RhIBs?
    I agree (but this agree to use other agencies, the NS provides VFM

  31. #95
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    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.
    We are a nation on an Island in the Eastern Atlantic with a limited surveillance capability in most dimensions but particularly Air and sub-sea. Over the years we have developed a surface fleet mostly by chance or whatever was available, such as left over craft post 1920's, then MTB's, then 3 Corvettes, then a hired in trawler,then 3 Coastal Minesweepers, then our own 5 build fleet from Verholme, then accidentally 2 Peacocks , and now 6 OPV's of two classes. Our plans going forward have not being constant, we are continually dismantling capability , but are left with skilled willing seamen waiting for a balanced Navy. Why not ASW, MCM,AAW, and SUBs. Combat and Naval Firepower is the forever mandate of all Navies, the rest, such as fishery protection, ATCP, etc. is the training ground to hone seagoing skills while doing necessary policing of our Sea Areas.

  32. Likes morpheus, Tempest, EUFighter liked this post
  33. #96
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    We are a nation on an Island in the Eastern Atlantic with a limited surveillance capability in most dimensions but particularly Air and sub-sea. Over the years we have developed a surface fleet mostly by chance or whatever was available, such as left over craft post 1920's, then MTB's, then 3 Corvettes, then a hired in trawler,then 3 Coastal Minesweepers, then our own 5 build fleet from Verholme, then accidentally 2 Peacocks , and now 6 OPV's of two classes. Our plans going forward have not being constant, we are continually dismantling capability , but are left with skilled willing seamen waiting for a balanced Navy. Why not ASW, MCM,AAW, and SUBs. Combat and Naval Firepower is the forever mandate of all Navies, the rest, such as fishery protection, ATCP, etc. is the training ground to hone seagoing skills while doing necessary policing of our Sea Areas.
    I absolutely agree about plans and it is across the public service.

    However, the threat is low, the costs are high and defence is not a priority for either Government or the taxpayer.

    We do need at least the ability to monitor the passage of submarines (as a minimum) but you do not need submarines to do that

  34. #97
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    Will we get some CVNs to cover the SSNs launching from the secret base in Foynes?? Read over post #78 again!
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  35. Likes DeV, Sparky42 liked this post
  36. #98
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    The ultimate control of sea lanes and Surveillance, reconnaissance , Interdiction within it, is the bailiwick of submarines such as the Swedish Gotland class with AIP. They have only 5 boats which has the US Navy agog after losing a Nuclear Carrier on paper more than once. we do need a sub hunt capability with an edge.

  37. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  38. #99
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    We don't even have heli's on our ships, crawl before you walk.
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  39. Likes Sparky42, DeV liked this post
  40. #100
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    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).
    Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    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.
    CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    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.
    I like this idea
    Last edited by Graylion; 13th April 2017 at 15:02.

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
  •