Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naval weaponry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
    So when we buy this tanker/stores vessel what are we going to do with it?

    Humanitarian assistance

    RAS of fleets that we can't deploy
    No, as gone through a million times for the hard of thinking, it's an asset that supports other people's very expensive high-end fighting ships as Ireland's contribution to European maritime security.

    This is the idea of providing a spoke in a large wheel, rather that providing a tiny wheel with poor quality tyres that doesn't fit on anyone elses axle.

    A ship like this could happily spend six months supporting the OP in the Med or OP Atlanta, do three months refit, and then spend three months pooling around the carribean catching drug runners and providing much needed humanitarian aid - and huge quantities to politically attractive TV coverage - every year for the rest of it's life.

    This compares somewhat favourably to a 3,000 ton Happy Shopper Corvette with no helicopter, a limited self defense capability, little offensive capability, no great shakes on the ISR front, no ASW, which needs to be refuelled and protected by other assets.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      So when we buy this tanker/stores vessel what are we going to do with it?

      Humanitarian assistance

      RAS of fleets that we can't deploy
      Everything the current fleet are already doing. Just doing things like RAS, overseas resupply, humanitarian aid a whole lot better than the current vessels can.
      Such a vessel is not limited by its design. It is still crewed by naval officers, NCOs and other ranks.
      Look at what the RN is doing with its vessels of this type in the Carribean and Indian Ocean.
      You can do RAS with whatever ship you are operating with, it doesn't need to be Irish.

      Can you see?
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • naval Weaponry

        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        So when we buy this tanker/stores vessel what are we going to do with it?

        Humanitarian assistance

        RAS of fleets that we can't deploy
        I,m finding it hard to believe that any of us is adding anything to creating a Navy that, at very least ,will defend itself adequately in home waters and on overseas missions. talking about 26,000 tonne ships is a useless exercise. Replenishment at sea is an everyday chore of most navies when moving on mission at sea. It stands to reason that ALL naval ships should be able RAS with each other and with other Navies.
        There is No planned intention of setting out solo to attack other countries or ships in our present configuration or alliances.
        We do get tasked beyond our capability to respond on politically expedient missions such as, Cuban Missile crisis, Support Mission and Survey at Monrovia with ARW, and Operation Pontus close to Lybian coast.

        The ships as currently designed and built are beyond the implied denigration of some, rather they are tamely equipped for the job they are doing in to day's fractious world of global terrorists. A replenishment vessel with other role capabilities, and well trained an exercised in all those roles, would remain an asset both at home and abroad.
        Last edited by ancientmariner; 14 January 2017, 16:42.

        Comment


        • An RAS would be an easy sell to the peace loving commy fagots in the Dail

          As we keep emergency humanitarian storehouses in the likes of Italy,

          We need something to move the stores with in times of disasters.

          Comment


          • The NS primarilly needs assets for patrolling. That will generally be within the Irish EEZ (that could be fishery protection, counter terrorism or defending neutrality. Everything after that is a bonus.

            We also need small crews definitely no more than 100. We can't man what we have.

            Why is RN sending replenishment vessels to do the job a frigate/destroyer used to do? They don't have enough.

            In the case of a humanitarian, resupply, etc type op. No argument, a replenishment type vessel is better. For patrolling, not ideal. IMHO an MRV is a good compromise - in fact that are specifically designed to do both jobs.

            Of course the MRV is likely more capable of being equipped to at very least detect surface, aerial and sub-surface threats - unlike a replenishment ship with CIWS and 30mm guns.

            Comment


            • Silly question here but why increase the fleet to 9?

              I had assumed the extra hull was to provide for operations further from home as in pontus??

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Orion View Post
                Silly question here but why increase the fleet to 9?

                I had assumed the extra hull was to provide for operations further from home as in pontus??
                Considering the study done (90's or 00's I think) suggested 12 ships, and we've since increased our EEZ area of patrol massively an increase in hull numbers is needed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post


                  The one in the middle is the German Navy Berlin class Joint Support ship. Canada just bought 2 for $2.6bn. NZ are buying a similar type of these for $493,000,000. Australia and the UK are spending £452,000,000 to get the Koreans to build something similar for them.
                  However, the sensible norwegians are spending £140m on this.

                  http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/bmt-design-p...pport-vessels/
                  I really like this idea. This has a second application. In EU integrated ops, having an AOR or two to bring to the table would be _very_ useful. And it would indeed be a lovely political sale.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                    I really like this idea. This has a second application. In EU integrated ops, having an AOR or two to bring to the table would be _very_ useful. And it would indeed be a lovely political sale.
                    That's why I suggested it, AOR hulls are certainly thin in the EU nations compared to the combat ships, having an option to put them on a mission rather than an OPV+ to me seems to have more value. Of course it's a hull designed for out of EEZ operations, but I think we should think about such a long term investment.
                    Last edited by Sparky42; 14 January 2017, 23:40.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      The NS primarilly needs assets for patrolling. That will generally be within the Irish EEZ (that could be fishery protection, counter terrorism or defending neutrality. Everything after that is a bonus.

                      We also need small crews definitely no more than 100. We can't man what we have.

                      Why is RN sending replenishment vessels to do the job a frigate/destroyer used to do? They don't have enough.

                      In the case of a humanitarian, resupply, etc type op. No argument, a replenishment type vessel is better. For patrolling, not ideal. IMHO an MRV is a good compromise - in fact that are specifically designed to do both jobs.

                      Of course the MRV is likely more capable of being equipped to at very least detect surface, aerial and sub-surface threats - unlike a replenishment ship with CIWS and 30mm guns.
                      You can patrol with any hull. In the past we patrolled with a Converted Trawler and a Lighthouse tender. Some countries carry out patrols with Destroyers. The MRV/EPV was expected to have a crew of 120. The AEGIR 18 has accomodation for 180, However the AEGIR 10, at 10000tonnes and 145m only requires a crew of 57, having accomodation for 80.

                      We can't man what we have because there is still a block on proper effective recruitment throughout the DF. Not just recruits but skilled tradespeople and specialised officers. A reluctance to replace skilled people who leave because DF wages are uncompetitive. It has always been this way.
                      Your point about the RN is incorrect, as the USN and Spanish are using their AORs in a similar manner. Indeed the SPS Patino took on Somali pirates who mistook them for a freighter. Using a Frigate or Destroyer for counter narcotics is overkill. Have you seen the level of armament on USCG vessels? Not their cutters, the vessels that do most of the work in the carribean? Even the armament of Customs vessels in europe? Once you have armed crew with fast interceptors you can make a hell of a difference.

                      It is as easy to fit proper sensors on an AOR as any other vessel. Combine that with a Helideck operating an aircraft with decent optics and radar and you still arrive at capability far greater than any current vessel in service here.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • AEGIR 18 is only equippedwith 30mm guns and 2 CWS, the SPS Patino is equipped with 20mm guns and 2 CWS, Considering the direction the thread had previously been taken is this arament adequate or do we need long range ASM and SAM systems. Fair play to the Spanish for having the balls to tackle pirates with just 2 x 20mm guns

                        Comment


                        • Any chance of thread title change to "AOR for Naval Service" etc?

                          Comment


                          • I don't think front line war fighting capability is a political option any time soon. 2 CIWS (Thales make a 40mm CIWS armed with rhe 40mm CTA) and a few extra guns is grand against smuggler. Decent radar aye and a half decent CMS. Possibly FFBNW for 2xCAMM VLS.

                            And presumably it would be the Aegir 10, possibly as 10R with more dry goods storage and a hospital.
                            Last edited by Graylion; 15 January 2017, 16:39.

                            Comment


                            • Ship Armament

                              Originally posted by apc View Post
                              AEGIR 18 is only equippedwith 30mm guns and 2 CWS, the SPS Patino is equipped with 20mm guns and 2 CWS, Considering the direction the thread had previously been taken is this arament adequate or do we need long range ASM and SAM systems. Fair play to the Spanish for having the balls to tackle pirates with just 2 x 20mm guns
                              .

                              Fleet ships are armed to cover the scenario in their AOP. The Spaniard didn,t attack but responded with their weapon systems including IZAR Ciws of which they have two with 12 barrels each. Their helicopter also joined in using a machine gun. Of the seven pirates, one killed missing, five wounded, and all alive captured and skiff destroyed. Patino had 50 small arms strikes from AK47.
                              We also must arm appropriately to Defend E 60m property and to carry out assigned missions in today's asymmetric threats.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by apc View Post
                                ...Considering the direction the thread had previously been taken is this arament adequate or do we need long range ASM and SAM systems...
                                depends on what you decide you want to do - if you want to provide a frontline, fighting ship that will regularly sit at the sharp end of EU and EU+ security operations, then you need something that can cope with the threats inherant in that and that can project the capabilities required to make such a vessel an actual asset rather than a waste of rations: thats either AAW, surface warfare, ASW, ISR, Aviation, or shore 'support'. so it needs one, or more, of those capabilities and it needs to be able to look after itself with surveilance systems and a mix of hard and soft defensive systems.

                                none of the above is going to come in at much less than 5,000 tonnes, and none of the above is going to come in at much less than €400m per hull.

                                if you chose to instead provide a RAS Suport Ship it would still need some defensive systems - CIWS of some type, and something in the 30-40mm RWS range, and the 'soft kill' DAS of jamming, decoys etc... however its job isn't projecting kinetic power, so you don't need the other capabilities you get on a fighting ship like a Frigate or Destroyer.

                                the worst. worst. worst thing you could possibly do would be to try and bastardise the two types - all you'd get would be a really crap, but reasuringly expensive, light frigate with little offensive or defensive capability, along with the load carrying ability of an athsmatic Ant.

                                personally i also see little point in a 10,000 ton fleet support ship - the initial cost isn't that much cheaper than a 26,000 ton fleet support ship like the RNoN Maud, the crewing requirement isn't that different, all you get for a little bit less money is a great deal less capability.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X