Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OPV Replacement

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

  • Originally posted by Victor View Post
    Dangerous way to go about things. If they proceed to tender for hte EPV whil the others are being designed / under construction other shipyards are unlikely to offer meaningful bids as they will assume the OPV yard will get the contract.
    Thats silly, naturally they'll make decent offers, as that's the way business works.

    Comment


    • Those builders who went to the trouble of making submissions to part one of the EPV tender process will naturally be invited to participate in part 2. No Shipbuilder/design house is going to pass up the chance of an order at the moment, no matter how small it may be.


      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

      Comment


      • from the ministers speech it seems more like the epv has gone on the back burner for the foreseeable future.

        where are they going to get the crews to continue manning the P20 class and 3 new ships?
        can't see that happening with the doom and gloom budgets forecast for the next few years. true, money may be put aside for new OPVs but i would suggest they'll be crewed by existing manning.
        An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

        Comment


        • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
          from the ministers speech it seems more like the epv has gone on the back burner for the foreseeable future.

          where are they going to get the crews to continue manning the P20 class and 3 new ships?
          can't see that happening with the doom and gloom budgets forecast for the next few years. true, money may be put aside for new OPVs but i would suggest they'll be crewed by existing manning.
          The world ends tomorrow. Abandon hope!

          The embargo ends in 2012, before the ships are due to enter service. By then the white Paper will have rebalanced all the spare bods in the Army and the useful ones will be in the Naval service, with the rest in semi retirement, i.e, the Air Corpse.


          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
            The world ends tomorrow. Abandon hope!

            The embargo ends in 2012, before the ships are due to enter service. By then the white Paper will have rebalanced all the spare bods in the Army and the useful ones will be in the Naval service
            we're a bit short on spare bods Goldie...unless your white paper is going to have the horsies crewing your new ships
            An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

            Comment


            • There are still personnel SWA on cadres how are they going to move them!

              Comment


              • whn you think about it despite the doom and gloom, there has ben quite a bit of kit bought in the past twelve months, LTAV, 120mm mortars, Giraffe radars, Rbs-70, lots of ammo, panjero, who not ships.

                Goldie, recruitmemt embargo lasting till 2012, where you get that from?

                As for the EPV being on the back burner, well wait and see.
                Last edited by paul g; 17 June 2009, 00:26.

                Comment


                • Oops, Typo. Meant 2010,

                  The EPV was ALWAYS going to be sidelined until the OPV contracts were signed. Its a very different proposal, for a very different type of ship, and it would be better to concentrate the wisdom on getting it right than to try and juggle 2 projects at once, something the NS has never done before. The P30 plans only begun when the last P20 was safely in the water.


                  Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                  Comment


                  • Exactly, and indeed perhaps earlier than 2010, lenihan can approve such things.

                    From 2000 to 2010 the army and air corps benefitted from spending, now its the navy's turn.
                    Last edited by paul g; 17 June 2009, 00:37.

                    Comment


                    • I would say the problem is that the Builder wants to lock the Government into a three ship deal and will offer inducements on price, terms of payment, etc. I hope they have the bottle to commit to three ships but it doesn't look like it and some how I don't expect they will as they have not shown much bottle anywhere else.
                      The usual terms of payment are 25% on signing the contract,25% on laying of the keel, 25% on launch and 25% on handover, all these can be varied except the last one!

                      Comment


                      • Any clues to who the builder would be if it goes ahead?

                        Comment


                        • Roisin was ordered back in December 1997, a fact i remmber because it was on same day i got engaged to be married.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pmtts View Post
                            Any clues to who the builder would be if it goes ahead?
                            No, and it would be unwise to suggest anything if you did know on a public forum until after contracts are signed.:wink:


                            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoker View Post
                              I would say the problem is that the Builder wants to lock the Government into a three ship deal and will offer inducements on price, terms of payment, etc. I hope they have the bottle to commit to three ships but it doesn't look like it and some how I don't expect they will as they have not shown much bottle anywhere else.
                              The usual terms of payment are 25% on signing the contract,25% on laying of the keel, 25% on launch and 25% on handover, all these can be varied except the last one!
                              They should link the 2 contracts, it could lower the cost.

                              Comment


                              • The ban is untill end 2010.

                                Lads, the cuts & increases taxes in the April 09 budget were a drop in the ocean - the Government has put it on paper that the cuts & increases tax are to massively increase (approx double in Jan 2010) in the next 2 budgets.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X