Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OPV Replacement

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

  • Would anything like this ever be a runner. There are a number of sizes/versions available to meet customer requirements.

    http://www.thalesgroup.com/integratedmast/

    Comment


    • That unit costs as much as the total budget available for the current fleet replacement.
      A similar setup is awaiting installation on the new dutch OPV, and makes up a majority of their construction costs.


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

      Comment


      • is the main cost the four faced phased array radar thingy or the technology used in the construction of the superstructure and its ability to seperate different masts? it says that current custom technology can be incorporated, can we therefore not buy the superstructure and build in the existing radars etc that we have? (i know very little about maritime military radars!)
        "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
        "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

        Comment


        • Sell nothing until replacements have been ordered or they wont be replaced
          Might not be the NS's choice after all they don't sign the cheques.

          Primarily a departmental call .

          I still reckon the Peacocks will become problematic both for continued operation due to restrictions even though they are possibly the cheapest to operate on a daily rate but they are far too limited in their capabilities.

          the other big issue is that Europe funds the majority of the production costs but the DF have to come up with the price of the weapon fits.

          Two little flaoting weapons fits already nearing the end of their life span sitting in Haulbowline.....which have given incredible VFM it has to be stated...and then theres the issue of FOCNs gaining his DSM while in command of one such vessel..is he sentimental enough to hang on to it for as long as he can...lol

          Seriously I think the weapons fits and FCS given it comes out of the Army capital budget will be the issue.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • the other big issue is that Europe funds the majority of the production costs
            Is this really still the case?

            Comment


            • Was with Niamh and Roisin.

              Government paid for them up front and received payback as they were completed....except for the weapons fits.
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • Why not for the weapons fit? Is the weapons fit expensive?
                There is no problem that cannot be fixed with high explosive.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stinger View Post
                  Why not for the weapons fit? Is the weapons fit expensive?
                  No, but the EU only funds the state being able to patrol the EEZ, not defend it.
                  Otherwis you'd have the krusties up in arms with the EU Uberstat arming a sovverrinn state blah blah blah


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

                  Comment


                  • I'm not sure about that. If the EU pays anything they only pay a %. It's not as simple as here's the money for a ship, now arm it yourselves.

                    The weapons fit is not covered in the build budget, which is itself paid out if the Defence budget. The weapons fit is then provided post build as Government Furnished Equipment.

                    I think that's where the distinction between build and weapons applies Murph.

                    Comment


                    • Also, from 00/01 we became net contributors to the EU, so I'm not sure EU funding or part funding is on the cards anymore. Remember back in the early 90's Albert coming back with 6 or 9 billion for signing up for Maastricht? Apart from some funding for Road and Rail, which were part of Pan European infrastructure upgrades, I don't think we qualify for much anymore.
                      Unless the funding is part of EU fisheries policy and available to all other pertinent States?
                      Last edited by Herald; 22 June 2011, 23:08.

                      Comment


                      • I've been since corrected, we are paying for these ourselves. Don't know why versus the past but was probably contributory to the hold up in the announcement of the contracts.

                        Which in itself is not a bad thing as it would appear that the NS can sell their case even in the face of adversity in the middle of a recession and someone is willing to listen and act on the NS advice.

                        This would give me hope that the NS would be able to protect its existing assets in view of any white paper and continue with retirements on the basis of retirement / replacement and the structure of the 8 ships service would remain intact.

                        Kudos to those who manage to get it done.
                        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                          UAV ops have always been a consideration in the design of both OPV and EPV, it is definitely an emerging necessity, and does away with having to bribe the bluffwaffe to come out for tea in the irish sea.
                          With that in mind , would the naval service consider using Eithne as the first vessel to use a UAV ? I know nothing about naval matters but Eithne does have an exisitng hangar and it would be a great starting point for the future Lessons could be learnt before other UAVs are used with the new ships
                          Last edited by knocker; 27 June 2011, 19:44.
                          Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier - Samuel Johnson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by easyrider View Post
                            Sell the Peacocks to the Philippines? Before they get any older?
                            May not be interested,Phillipino Navy took delivery of ex USCG 115m cutter Hamilton last month and is taking others in the class as become available.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by danno View Post
                              May not be interested,Phillipino Navy took delivery of ex USCG 115m cutter Hamilton last month and is taking others in the class as become available.
                              Thats a Nice Deal. The Hamiltons are an excellent, if older, vessel, comparable to a frigate in weaponry. Hamilton was built in 1965.


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

                              Comment


                              • Don't know why versus the past but was probably contributory to the hold up in the announcement of the contracts.
                                Not really Murph. The NS equipment programme in the late 1990s/early 2000s was part funded by the CFP (just like the CASAs were part funded in an earlier era). This meant that the State paid for the equipment up front, and then claimed a proportion of the funds back from the EU for that proportion of the costs deemed 'eligible'. Weapons fit is not deemed 'eligible', and thus was not recoverable (other costs that wouldn't be deemed eligible would be things like Admin costs, or certain types of outsourced contracts).

                                The CFP changed fairly radically in 2002 (major reform package), and the type of capital supports previously available dissappeared. Given that these funds have not been available for nearly a decade, there's little chance that this was an issue holding up the replacement programme. It was just down to sorting out the capital budgeting process, and possibly wrangling over the terms of the contract.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X