Thanks Thanks:  50
Likes Likes:  132
Dislikes Dislikes:  4
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 204
  1. #101
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    anyway the etender for the OPVs and EPVs has expired... not sure exactly what this means, but details for the EPVs were to be given at stage 2... assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reached. https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/pu.../PublicTenders
    They were not tenders, they were RFPs. OPV went to stage 2, request for tender. EPV did not. The tender above is for consultants, effectively to delay the decision as long as possible at the time, thanks to that limerick moustachio'd gobshite.

  2. Likes DeV, hptmurphy, CTU liked this post
  3. #102
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Thats 5...stop..you'll confuse them.

    Given the Eithne / Air corps experiment was given 6 years with One detention resulting from the helo ops in its designated primary role, a role that is no longer required, can you not see the lessons learned that there are now alternatives to having to be able to operate a Helo from naval vessel.

    The CG/ NS argument, its not going to happen ever..ever because of the politics involved between the departments involved. Neither will surrender its budget to do the others job.

    There is no requirement for the CG to be able to operate from Naval vessels neither is there a service provider in the world that can do so. The cost of having an operator capable of operating would make the contract unfeasible.



    the current class will not be fitted for flight OPs..end of!

    Given we don't know what the next class will be we can't say there will or won't be a flight Ops option but there would have to be a radical mindset change across the board, massive investment in the flights ops aspect alone before it could happen. You won't see it within 10 years.

    The government or europe won't spend money on a 'just in case ' basis.

    You need to put forward a business case, and given the last shot at is still to be seen in living grey and can be identified as a failure in the role and people associated with the project are alive and well and still serving....not going to happen anytime soon.

    There are many arguements why it should be there, we are telling you the reality of why its not there and what the barriers are.
    If you change "still Serving" to "Still Flying" I'll give you a like.

  4. #103
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    496
    Post Thanks / Like
    They don't need helipads the same way they don't need ASW or AA suites. Or indeed 76mm guns.
    but it's a lot more odd to have a naval ship without a gun, and the gun takes up less room than an unused helipad. If we can ever afford naval air, we can afford new ships for 'em.
    ships that could actually be some use if someone fired anything bigger than a 12.5 at them.

  5. #104
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you change "still Serving" to "Still Flying" I'll give you a like
    Given the guy who did the trials for the AW139 has been retired over a year I don't see any deck rated helo pilots still in service, although there may be Dauphin qualified peeps.

    But the first FDO is !
    Just visiting

  6. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  7. #105
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    The EPV was/is to be capable of HIFR (as an option) and to have a flight deck spot for a non-organic 10 metric tonne helo (with no ship borne facilities for launch or recovery)

    http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...Specifications

  8. #106
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    764
    Post Thanks / Like

    HMS Severn readies for new mission by training with her sister HMS Tyne

    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and...ister-hms-tyne

    The rare sight of HMS Severn and Tyne sailing in company graced the waters off Scotland’s west coast as the two vessels prepared for very different missions. Tyne is safeguarding the nation’s fishing stocks by keeping a watchful eye on trawlers, but Severn is about to cross the Atlantic for the first time for a patrol of British territories in the Caribbean.

    Red sky at night, shepherd’s delight.

    Red sky in the morning, two fishery protection ships leaving Faslane in company...

    HMS Tyne (P281) leads her younger sister HMS Severn (P282) into the Clyde estuary for some rare combined training involving ships which typically exercise and operate independently.

    As well as being the home to the nation’s strategic deterrent – four Vanguard-class submarines – Astute-class submarines and Sandown-class minehunters, Faslane is also the home of the northern ‘branch’ of the RN’s premier training organisation, FOST.


    Whilst Severn normally operates in UK waters, our focus is now on preparing the ship and our personnel for Atlantic Patrol North.
    Lt Cdr Steve Banfield
    Ships of frigate size and above are prepared for deployments by teams from FOST’s HQ in Devonport, making use of the exercise areas off Plymouth.

    And all smaller vessels are put through their paces by FOST North around the Scottish west coast.

    In Severn’s case she’s about to break the bonds which keep her working around the UK ensuring the nation’s fishing stocks are preserved and, for the first time, head for the Caribbean for an Atlantic Patrol North mission over the winter, taking over from HMS Argyll.

    Argyll has proved indispensable in two drug busts – bagging over £30m of illegal narcotics – and helping clearing up to clear up in the aftermath of Hurricane Gonzalo in Bermuda.

    The offshore patrol vessel will be expected to pick up where Argyll left off: on stand-by for disaster relief operations and any other duties in support of the region’s British Overseas Territories, as well as embarking a law enforcement detachment from the US Coastguard in the ongoing fight against drug smuggling in the region.

    The initial ten days of training in Scotland assessed Severn’s ability to deal with internal problems – fires, flooding, breakdowns – and external ones, such as coming under attack.

    The second phase of training is more ‘free play’ and specially focused on the mission the ship is expected to carry out, such as putting a reconnaissance team ashore to scout and report the devastating effects of a hurricane; Severn can produce ten tonnes of fresh water a day and carry six ISO containers of aid and equipment.

    “Whilst we do not have the range of capabilities and manpower of HMS Argyll, we are trained and fully capable of putting specialist Royal Navy personnel ashore to assess damage, identify priorities and recommend where disaster relief resources are best apportioned’ said Lt Ben Read, HMS Severn’s Navigating Officer.

    Severn’s Commanding Officer Lt Cdr Steve Banfield added: “The forthcoming deployment is a new challenge for HMS Severn – although not for the Royal Navy.

    “Whilst Severn normally operates in UK waters, our focus is now on preparing the ship and our personnel for Atlantic Patrol North. I’m confident that our training has prepared us well for all contingencies and tasking that may be required of us.”

    Severn is due to leave her native Portsmouth later this autumn. Between now and then she’ll be visiting London in support of annual remembrance events in the capital.

    Last edited by Dogwatch; 1st November 2014 at 23:57.

  9. Likes ibenji liked this post
  10. #107
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Taskings previously carried out by destroyers and frigtates now being down graded to OPVs.

    From an article read in IFR this month that the RN offloaded so many qualified people in the SDR period that Frigates and Destroyers apart from Lean Manning now have to put to sea often with up to 8% of technicians missing. People have been paid extraordinary bonuses to remain on, huge brain drain under VR packages.

    the new carriers will put even greater strain on an already strapped RN, both man power wise and and funding.....and they will be in service before the aircraft they were supposed to operate will be ready, so there could yet be a rebuild to accept a conventional aircraft.

    Not good .
    Just visiting

  11. Thanks ropebag thanked for this post
  12. #108
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    the new carriers will put even greater strain on an already strapped RN, both man power wise and and funding.....and they will be in service before the aircraft they were supposed to operate will be ready, so there could yet be a rebuild to accept a conventional aircraft.
    I thought the RN said they were sticking with the F35B?

  13. #109
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    i'm umming and arghing about this - on one hand its good that an OPV/RFA task isn't being done by a FF/DD thats sorely needed elsewhere, on the other hand the AP(N) ship is also the first reinforcement ship for the Falklands..

    i've heard from several different friends at MOD that the RN manpower problem is near the top of the list of things that SDSR15 needs to address - all the service chiefs accept that RN manning needs to go up, and pretty much everyone accepts that if new money isn't found then the Army will have to take the hit to pay for it.

    don't be surprised if Army 2020 goes in the bin: i still won't be shocked if we go down to 3Cdo Bde, 16AA Bde, and just two MR Bde's.

  14. #110
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    I thought the RN said they were sticking with the F35B?
    They are, and best guesses see the first of them arrive in 2018. However given that the USMC order is also delayed, who knows when they will arrive. The USMC got the first of 420 aircraft early last month only. The USMC aircraft must be operational (Equipped with 10-16 aircraft) between July 2015 and December 2015 (or else).

  15. Thanks pym, hptmurphy thanked for this post
  16. #111
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    i think at this stage that F-35B will happen, its just a question of when, how compromised it is and how much it costs. not needing F-35 until 2017 or so for the first carrier, 2018/19 to replace Tornado, and 2020 for the second carrier looks like being fortunate.

    the USMC, as well as being full of shit about the whole programme, needs F-35B right now in a way that we don't - they've recovered their Harrier programme with the purchace of the RAF/RN GR9's (sob..), but their F/A-18's are falling to peices. they might achieve some initial capability, but they are buying aircraft that are being manufactured before the testing program is complete - do not be surprised if some/all the aircraft that make up the initial capability don't stay in service for long and end up either back in the factory being rebuilt to ne next production standard, or being scrapped...

  17. Likes na grohmití, Turkey, hptmurphy liked this post
  18. #112
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    personally I think the RN have shot them selves in the foot adopting the arrest/launch equipment they have given it willl seriously limit the options for aircraft inoperability. While the USMC may be in trouble regarding procurement of aircraft, the USN or the French are not and both have quite viable aircraft that could have been opertaed in the interim.

    While the 35B is flying and carrying out trials these are very limited and it has yet to be proven that this thing can opertate from anything except under severly controlled test conditions.

    The RN should have been in a sitautaion where the Austrailians found themselves prior to delivery of their F111s many years ago, where the lease a suitable aircraft in the interim. But the fit out of the carrier won't allow another type to operate so should the schedule go the way of the V22 Opreys development the RN could have carriers in operations for some years, with no aircraft to fly from them.
    Just visiting

  19. #113
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwatch View Post
    Whitehall today signed a £348m deal with shipbuilding BAE to provide the Fleet with three new patrol ships.

    Yet another western navy plans to build OPVs with a flight deck, shows how to best utilise a 90 - 100 metre platform.

    £348m stg equates to €437.67m, which works out to be €146m per ship.......awful lot......... imho
    Interestingly the Brazilians only paid GBP 133 Million for their three Batch 11's. They bought the 3 already / mostly built for Trinidad and Tobago but the contract was terminated in 2010 and so were up for grabs. The T & T NS had agreed on a price tag of GBP 150 Million so the Brazilians got them at a knock down price. (Neither of the aforementioned are tied to any BAE / MOD agreement hence the lower overall price.)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-16383765

    How did the NS at home miss out on that one? Its a small world out there and were we not firing out tenders at that stage for more vessels? Agree with the Dog wholeheartedly when it comes to helis and operating them at sea. Cannot for the life of me understand the "anti lobby" on here that are so against the use of them or having the ability to use them. The ability to use them is the more important point. Were not talking HMS Ocean here but to have the ability to operate helis from the deck of a ship is priceless. And when not operating heli's the Batch 11's can carry 6 x ISO containers and have a 17t crane for all the ROV deploying and recovering you could wish for.

    The Batch 11's do not house helis and are not suited to long duration heli tasks but they can do it when they need to. Is that too much of an ask? Or will we forever be relying on the good old RN and their ship board helis to come and sort our shit out the next time there is a disaster at sea? Not too long ago there was a vid on here somewhere of the ARW fast-roping onto the deck of a passenger / car ferry, one of their many tasks. How do you propose they do that on a vessel out of range on the 139's? RN and the lad's from H or Poole? Yes its only one example but the list is endless.

    The skills may be lost on our shores but not with our neighbors. We send folks over there for all sorts why so not heli / ship operations? Cant? Wont? Don't want to? Don't need it? Too much negativity and not enough foresight to make the most of our very limited assets. UAV's are all well and good but they cant pluck people from the deck of a sinking vessel, they cant deploy teams on board hostile vessels, they cant carry out ship to shore replenishment, they cant provide (real life) topcover for any number of tasks you care to mention (humanitarian and military). They are a tool, part of a much larger box of tricks. Not having that heli deck is a trick missed. Unfortunately the lessons learned from LE Eithne seem to be "If at first you don't succeed, give up". Sad, but true. It should have been "Fcuked that one up! Right RN, how the fcuk do you do this?" And cracked on.

    Of course all of the above is just chat. We don't have them (heli decks) and probably wont.

    Apart from her that is.

    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  20. #114
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    How did the NS at home miss out on that one?
    They didn't. Contract had already been signed for the lead P60.

    This was debated here in some deail at the time and should be noted that the NS were pursuing their own spec as opposed to buying from the shelf.

    Cannot for the life of me understand the "anti lobby" on here that are so against the use of them or having the ability to use them.
    My own opinion is based on my experience of the services that were tasked in the past and the limitations involved....plus I was there for two years watching it not work for a huge variety of reasons.

    "
    If at first you don't succeed, give up". Sad, but true. It should have been "Fcuked that one up! Right RN, how the fcuk do you do this?" And cracked on.
    No so much..more like we can't afford to go down the road of blowing that amount of cash again to get it wrong.The RN don't base helos on 80m vessels either nor do they expect their Patrol vessels to operate helos on routine FP missions.

    Economy of scale, take into context the budget taken to run the NS and you want to double that by adding a helo capability that has limited value, no return and huge over heads.....

    Too much negativity and not enough foresight to make the most of our very limited assets
    Au contrere enough experience and foresight to know what can be done better without having to throw a shit load of money at an issue without knowing the definete outcomes.
    Just visiting

  21. Thanks FMP, na grohmití, Herald thanked for this post
  22. #115
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    personally I think the RN have shot them selves in the foot adopting the arrest/launch equipment they have given it willl seriously limit the options for aircraft inoperability. While the USMC may be in trouble regarding procurement of aircraft, the USN or the French are not and both have quite viable aircraft that could have been opertaed in the interim.

    While the 35B is flying and carrying out trials these are very limited and it has yet to be proven that this thing can opertate from anything except under severly controlled test conditions.

    The RN should have been in a sitautaion where the Austrailians found themselves prior to delivery of their F111s many years ago, where the lease a suitable aircraft in the interim. But the fit out of the carrier won't allow another type to operate so should the schedule go the way of the V22 Opreys development the RN could have carriers in operations for some years, with no aircraft to fly from them.

    The RN have forgotten that the carrier is there to carry aircraft, the aircraft aren't there to fly off the carrier!

    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    Interestingly the Brazilians only paid GBP 133 Million for their three Batch 11's. They bought the 3 already / mostly built for Trinidad and Tobago but the contract was terminated in 2010 and so were up for grabs. The T & T NS had agreed on a price tag of GBP 150 Million so the Brazilians got them at a knock down price. (Neither of the aforementioned are tied to any BAE / MOD agreement hence the lower overall price.)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-16383765

    How did the NS at home miss out on that one? Its a small world out there and were we not firing out tenders at that stage for more vessels? Agree with the Dog wholeheartedly when it comes to helis and operating them at sea. Cannot for the life of me understand the "anti lobby" on here that are so against the use of them or having the ability to use them. The ability to use them is the more important point. Were not talking HMS Ocean here but to have the ability to operate helis from the deck of a ship is priceless. And when not operating heli's the Batch 11's can carry 6 x ISO containers and have a 17t crane for all the ROV deploying and recovering you could wish for.
    Well compared to the OPV specs in the tender the Amazonas Class have:
    - a beam too short by 0.5 m
    - a draught too shallow by 0.3 m
    - too short range by 500 nm

  23. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
  24. #116
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is not buying off the shelf the preferred manner of the DF (I know the NS like to do their own thing). Nothing wrong with having your own specs and the 51's and 61's have proven to be fantastic vessels so you totally got that right. But as the Batch 11's were on offer at the time and replacements were badly, badly needed in the fleet, I feel an effort should have been made to acquire them while waiting the 61's to sail out. A huge effort. A costly effort but worth the effort.

    I am aware that the RN don't base helis on PV's and I did mention it, but they do operate helis from those decks and that's where you get your new skills from. Courtesy of them! Its a given, its a known, there is no guesswork involved. Decades of doing it off destroyers, frigates and patrol vessels, all that experience at your fingertips. No risk to yourselves. A cost, but no risk. In the same waters as the NS, same conditions and to a degree same tasks. Not just in heli operations but in the vessels operating them. Try before you buy! We don't make enough effort to make use of the efforts of others. Or didn't anyway. And certainly not "them".

    LE Eithne is what? 30 odd years old now. In my humble opinion to have a vessel equipped to carry out heli operations and that ability never properly used and only short lived while she did is by far more wasteful that rectifying the problems associated with her in the first place. Limited asset (1 off), not used to its full potential. Shocking waste of money. Considering she is still in service.

    Like I said Murph, just chatting. But what if! What if that elusive EPV is finally realised and there on the back of her is a big flat space and its titled "Heli Deck". What do we do then? Do crack on in our own fashion? Or do we ask those in the know?

    Yes it may not be a requirement now, but things change. Need it and not have it is not a nice place to be as you well know. I'm not talking hangers and tricked out ATC towers. Just a deck and some lights, air crews who have done tours with the RN, some form of base level to start from. Just in case.

    Most of what were talking about is the past and therefore unchangeable. Except the mistakes made. Those can be learned from and not made again. I guess what those mistakes were will for ever be a topic for discussion. And the arguments for and against as varied as the topics being discussed themselves.
    Last edited by FMP; 4th December 2014 at 21:27.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  25. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag liked this post
  26. #117
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The RN have forgotten that the carrier is there to carry aircraft, the aircraft aren't there to fly off the carrier!



    Well compared to the OPV specs in the tender the Amazonas Class have:
    - a beam too short by 0.5 m
    - a draught too shallow by 0.3 m
    - too short range by 500 nm
    And a heli deck .
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  27. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  28. #118
    CQMS jack nastyface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Taskings previously carried out by destroyers and frigtates now being down graded to OPVs.

    From an article read in IFR this month that the RN offloaded so many qualified people in the SDR period that Frigates and Destroyers apart from Lean Manning now have to put to sea often with up to 8% of technicians missing. People have been paid extraordinary bonuses to remain on, huge brain drain under VR packages.

    the new carriers will put even greater strain on an already strapped RN, both man power wise and and funding.....and they will be in service before the aircraft they were supposed to operate will be ready, so there could yet be a rebuild to accept a conventional aircraft.

    Not good .
    The RN have had to get seconded USCG and French Naval Engineers and Mechs in to keep things going.Mad stuff.

  29. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  30. #119
    CQMS jack nastyface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Given the guy who did the trials for the AW139 has been retired over a year I don't see any deck rated helo pilots still in service, although there may be Dauphin qualified peeps.

    But the first FDO is !
    Isn't 'Bold Sir H' still in the corpse? (Sorry,Corps)

  31. #120
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    But as the Batch 11's were on offer at the time and replacements were badly, badly needed in the fleet, I feel an effort should have been made to acquire them while waiting the 60's to sail out. A huge effort. A costly effort but worth the effort.
    To be perfectly honest with you - I think you're dreaming if you think the DF could have got the P60's & those BAE vessels in addition.

    I really struggle to see how the Defence Forces could have managed to get their hands on an additional €160+ million, out of a total budget (not including pensions) of less than €700m. This at a time of real sustained austerity - year after year of cutbacks.

    You're reading this forum, you're seeing the shortages the wider DF is facing - the issues with maintenance etc.

    Now expand that wider to the Gardai, to the healthcare system, etc. etc.

    It's all creaking after years and years of cutbacks.

    And the Government are going to be sold on spending €160+ on extra vessels? Is that before or after the squadron of Gripens?

    Rant aside - I'm firmly in the "have loads of aft space which a helicopter could operate from, in a pinch" camp - but I get the impression that even the mere possibility of a helicopter operating off an Irish Naval ship would give the beancounters aneurysms.
    Last edited by pym; 4th December 2014 at 18:44.

  32. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  33. #121
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    pym I do agree with you, honest I do, all of it and I am well aware of the issues. All of them financial, but a few more related to "it wont happen to us so why do we need it". The 61's got signed off and ended up costing more or less the same as the 3 x Batch 11's which were on offer for GBP 133 million. But without the aforementioned flat bit of deck. All I'm saying is, a bit of foresight (that we would spend the money a few years later) and a bit of determination to protect our island nation's assets and resources and those that work the sea for a living to the best of our ability. The lack of political will to do that, I can tell you it makes me angry and very frustrated that our forces (all of them) are tied to a millstone of false neutrality, a population that believes "it wont happen to us" and the belief that someone else will sort our problems for us.

    Not looking for Exocet, Seawolf, or HMS Ocean. Just the kit to give the lad's and ladettes the best possible chance of doing their job to the best of their ability as part of a DF that can work together. And if that means a bit of flat steel to fly a 139 off, I think and believe they should have it.

    The 51's and 61's are superb vessels and all who sail in them and every vessel in our inventory do, in my opinion an amazing job. Just wish their political masters would take a leaf from their book and do likewise.

    That's all it is pym, its frustration and anger that good people are having to fight tooth and nail for nuts bolts and rivets. Let alone a ship that can operate a 139 on an occasional basis. I know its pie in the sky. But I will fight my corner at the same time .
    Last edited by FMP; 4th December 2014 at 21:22.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  34. Likes pym, morpheus liked this post
  35. #122
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    And instead the NS got the vessels it needed to the specs they wanted (not those of another country whose navies operate in completely different seas to the NS

  36. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití liked this post
  37. #123
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    And instead the NS got the vessels it needed to the specs they wanted (not those of another country whose navies operate in completely different seas to the NS
    Not saying they didn't DeV. Far from it. Said it before the 51 and 61 class are pure class just cant help feeling that if the option were on the table in the first place the NS would say yes please. We will take a heli capable vessel or two.

    How much of that was influenced by the DoD and therefore the NS's political masters? Find the politicians usually have more sway than the men and girls on the ground. Look at the UK MoB.

    Maybe I'm totally wrong, but was it not the politicians that got in the way of Blackhawk for example?

    River class Batch 11 are also operated by the RN, based on the original River Class which is operated by the RN who operate in much the same waters as the NS. The North Atlantic and South Atlantic and a few other places in between (not that there's actually much in between, less you count the Med and the Caribbean etc) .
    Last edited by FMP; 4th December 2014 at 21:23.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  38. #124
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    pym I do agree with you, honest I do, all of it and I am well aware of the issues. All of them financial, but a few more related to "it wont happen to us so why do we need it". The 61's got signed off and ended up costing more or less the same as the 3 x Batch 11's which were on offer for GBP 133 million. But without the aforementioned flat bit of deck. All I'm saying is, a bit of foresight (that we would spend the money a few years later) and a bit of determination to protect our island nation's assets and resources and those that work the sea for a living to the best of our ability. The lack of political will to do that, I can tell you it makes me angry and very frustrated that our forces (all of them) are tied to a millstone of false neutrality, a population that believes "it wont happen to us" and the belief that someone else will sort our problems for us.

    Not looking for Exocet, Seawolf, or HMS Ocean. Just the kit to give the lad's and ladettes the best possible chance of doing their job to the best of their ability as part of a DF that can work together. And if that means a bit of flat steel to fly a 139 off, I think and believe they should have it.

    The 60's and 61's are superb vessels and all who sail in them and every vessel in our inventory do, in my opinion an amazing job. Just wish their political masters would take a leaf from their book and do likewise.

    That's all it is pym, its frustration and anger that good people are having to fight tooth and nail for nuts bolts and rivets. Let alone a ship that can operate a 139 on an occasional basis. I know its pie in the sky. But I will fight my corner at the same time .
    The Navy got what it wanted, they didn't want Helis. The helis we have aren't suited to Naval operations. The Navy didn't have a budget to buy helis as part of, or separate to, the OPV tender. A Heli deck could have been part of the final EPV tender, it may infact still be.The Navy wanted 3 OPV's to it's specification, It wants 2 EPV's, also to its specification. Buying the 3 P60's and the 3 amazonas would have killed the EPV for sure.

    Where is any of this difficult?

    Should we buy one of the French Mistral's? It can carry Heli's too, the only difference is the number of zero's after this €10000..........
    Last edited by Herald; 4th December 2014 at 20:23.

  39. Likes na grohmití, DeV liked this post
  40. #125
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Zero difficulty mate. None at all on my side but you seem a bit confused. We are having a discussion about the pros and cons of heli ops capable ships, sort of started when I asked about the Batch 11's. No one ever said "Navy buy helis" there was the mention of maybe a 139 doing a deck landing during a bit of SAR or the ARW deploying from one off shore out of heli range of the shore, some humanitarian mission stuff but that's about it. No navy heli's mentioned at all. Not once did I mention the NS buying helis. Deck capable crews, that's a different story and you don't have to be navy to do that or the heli your flying in. And the 139 is a very capable heli for deck landings, never said naval operations, I do understand the difference. Helis at sea can do a lot more than just kill sub's. Nor did I ever suggest the navy did not get what they wanted, full of admiration for the 51 and 61 class actually, was always dissapointed the option for a third 51 was never taken up. But I am interested as to why the flight deck option is so off the table in some circles.

    WTF is all this crap about aircraft carriers by the way? At least my arguments are somewhere in the realms or reason. River Class Batch 11 would have cost the same as the 61's did and we still have a bunch of ships that need replacing so the money has to come from somewhere at some stage.

    From what you say Herald does that mean the EPV is a no go now anyway? With the 51 class bought, the 61 class bought (sorry just realized my typo from earlier, was referring to 60 and 61 class instead of 51 and 61 class) where does that leave us with the remaining ships nearing the end of their service and up for replacement if that extra three would have killed EPV would not the replacement of a further 3 (Eithne and the peacocks,,,,,sounds like a dodgy 80's band) not do the same? Or are the EPV's part of that replacement? If not whats going to replace those that need replacing?
    Last edited by FMP; 4th December 2014 at 22:08.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  41. Likes Dogwatch liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. OPV Replacement
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy FAQs
    Replies: 2410
    Last Post: 18th October 2017, 19:04
  2. Armidale Class Patrol Boats.
    By Farel' in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 13th April 2010, 05:02
  3. Who will be the next CoS
    By Muzzle in forum Army & Army Reserve
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 13:28

Posting Permissions

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