Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

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

  • Utility wise the full utility could have been used a few times (let's look at since 2000):

    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2001
    Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp deployment - 2001
    Bosnia - SFOR / EUFOR rotation - 2003 (not sure if this was required)
    Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp withdrawal - 2003
    Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn deployment - 2003
    Kosovo - Tpt Coy / Inf Gp rotation - 2004
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp deployment - 2006
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp withdrawal - 2007
    Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2007
    Sweden - NBG ex - 2008
    ? - EUFOR Chad/CAR Inf Bn deployment - 2008
    ? - MINURCAT Inf Bn withdrawal - 2010

    Sweden - NBG ex - 2010
    Kosovo - Inf Gp withdrawal - 2010
    Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn deployment - 2011
    Lebanon - UNDOF - 2013
    Sweden - NBG ex - 2015
    Germany - EUBG ex - 2016

    Then there could have been other ops eg the clear up after the 2004 Tsunami, 2010 Haiti earthquake, the evacuation from Libya in 2011, foreign cruises (eg Niamh to the Far East in 2002 and Eithne to South America in 2006), I'm sure there are others
    Last edited by DeV; 14 January 2016, 00:56.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Utility wise the full utility could have been used a few times (let's look at since 2000):

      Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2001
      Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp deployment - 2001
      Bosnia - SFOR / EUFOR rotation - 2003 (not sure if this was required)
      Eriteria - UNMEE Inf Gp withdrawal - 2003
      Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn deployment - 2003
      Kosovo - Tpt Coy / Inf Gp rotation - 2004
      Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp deployment - 2006
      Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Gp withdrawal - 2007
      Liberia - UNMIL Inf Bn withdrawal - 2007
      Sweden - NBG ex - 2008
      ? - EUFOR Chad/CAR Inf Bn deployment - 2008
      ? - MINURCAT Inf Bn withdrawal - 2010

      Sweden - NBG ex - 2010
      Kosovo - Inf Gp withdrawal - 2010
      Lebanon - UNIFIL Inf Bn deployment - 2011
      Lebanon - UNDOF - 2013
      Sweden - NBG ex - 2015
      Germany - EUBG ex - 2016

      Then there could have been other ops eg the clear up after the 2004 Tsunami, 2010 Haiti earthquake, the evacuation from Libya in 2011, foreign cruises (eg Niamh to the Far East in 2002 and Eithne to South America in 2006), I'm sure there are others
      What has the cost of the above lifts been, 18 lifts in 15 years doesnt really warrant an EPV an adequate lift capability as a necessity . Would we not be better to gat a ship that suits our realistic needs and hire in sealift as we need. As quoted the 2015 sealift to sweden cost €250,000. Not bad value for a service we need infrequently. What would a ship cost that meets our sealift requirement, and how long would it take to make that back, plus if our next deployment was landlocked like Chad, it wouldnt be much use. Then again maybe a few C-17s would be better

      Comment


      • Originally posted by apc View Post
        What has the cost of the above lifts been, 18 lifts in 15 years doesnt really warrant an EPV an adequate lift capability as a necessity . Would we not be better to gat a ship that suits our realistic needs and hire in sealift as we need. As quoted the 2015 sealift to sweden cost €250,000. Not bad value for a service we need infrequently. What would a ship cost that meets our sealift requirement, and how long would it take to make that back, plus if our next deployment was landlocked like Chad, it wouldnt be much use. Then again maybe a few C-17s would be better
        again, it depends on what you use it for.

        if you use it for exactly, and only, the above, then i see no point buying what is an easily hirable civilian cabability.

        however, if that is not the plan, that it would be used for the above and other sealift/NCE/disaster relief tasks, including ones where taking an unarmed civilian ferry might not be appropriate, then its a worthwhile purchace.

        new equipment changes behaviour. we can see that time and again within the DF - new MOWAG's lead to crunchier deployments - if the NS had had an Absolon type vessel in 2011 would it have taken part in the Benghazi evacuations along with everyone else? if in 2011 the AC had had a C-130 with a DAS, would it still have sent a stripped out CASA and a Learjet to Tripoli airport?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
          What about the Graving Dock in Cobh? 25m is much too large to fit into it, so which Graving Dock would the NS use instead?
          Possibly the one where the ship would be built, in the UK or mainland Europe, until Irish industry gets the finger out. The option of purchasing a large enough floating dock and placing it in cobh would open that particular facility up to more work, if the repair yard wanted it.
          Is there still ship repair in Belfast?
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Should be pointed out of course that if keeping within the constraints (and keeping it as a coy gp sized vessel) then in the cases above you'd need to add probably another 9 journeys (or charter anyway).

            There is also potentionally other missions that could have been completed (eg the Mediterranean or to lift UN/EU forces.

            If you arm it too much, it will drastically reduce the cargo capacity (as there are size constraints), which will mean you have to charter more, if you add too many weapons the NS won't be able to man it or afford to buy it (and it would then have to be made smaller). So you could end up with a frigate (that can carry 10 TEUs) with no major meaningful role other than as a big expensive OPV.

            HDMS Absalon is well armed and about the right size but cost over €350m (to pay for it you'd need to reduce the army to 1 Bde)
            HMLMS Rotterdam is much bigger with lighter armament (don't have a cost).

            Not saying it isn't a valid argumen BTW but the Governmeht has decided that a MRV (with freight capacity), we know from the RFP the kind of size we are talking about (and we know it's the kind of vessel being looked for). Good VFM would say IMHO that it must be a meaningful freight capacity and that means min Coy Gp. IMHO a Bn Gp sized vessel is more desirable but it would be completely unaffordable, too big, the NS wouldn't be able to man it and it would be under utilised.
            Last edited by DeV; 14 January 2016, 09:19.

            Comment


            • the more i read this thread the more worried and confused i become about what is being looked for....EPV / MRV / battleship / car ferry????

              furthermore, from what people who seem to know a bit about it are saying, it seems the comments or specs from DoD / WP so far appear to be vague, conflicting and have particular (seemingly artificial) constriants built in.

              nothing available or off the shelf seems to be apropriate.

              all of which makes me fear that we will end up going down the route of something specificially designed for us....which will enevitably be overpriced, under what capability it could have had and not practically suitable for any intended roles (too small to carry sufficient cargo and too slow/cumbersome to be an effective PV).

              is it going to be the Irish horse designed by committee that looks like a camel??
              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


              • As a flagship for the fleet and as the option that seems to "Tick" most of the boxes above and certainly would lead to a massive increase in capability surely purchasing an Absalon of our own is the obvious answer? Very capable as a Patrol Vessel and heli operations, ro ro, etc, huge flexibility, the only issue really is cost. Apart from the initial purchase cost what would ongoing running costs be like?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                  the more i read this thread the more worried and confused i become about what is being looked for....EPV / MRV / battleship / car ferry????

                  furthermore, from what people who seem to know a bit about it are saying, it seems the comments or specs from DoD / WP so far appear to be vague, conflicting and have particular (seemingly artificial) constriants built in.

                  nothing available or off the shelf seems to be apropriate.

                  all of which makes me fear that we will end up going down the route of something specificially designed for us....which will enevitably be overpriced, under what capability it could have had and not practically suitable for any intended roles (too small to carry sufficient cargo and too slow/cumbersome to be an effective PV).

                  is it going to be the Irish horse designed by committee that looks like a camel??
                  That is the way tenders work, if you over specify you rule out a lot of competition potentionally (forcing you to take what's offer at their price with no room for negotiation). The NS isn't in the business of designing ships.

                  The specs for the EPV laid out the general size of the vessel and some of the fit. Primary purpose will be as a large very capable PV with additional capacities (the RFP didn't specify what they would be, but it possibly hinted at it in an annex giving dims of vehicles etc (and any pics the NS showed of the blue/green vessel concept showed plenty of MOWAGs on board).

                  The specs for the MRV could be hugely different (personnally dims wise I don't think they will be, they didn't just pull them out of the air for the EPV (there must be reasoning behind it).

                  The NS is very knowledgable over what they want and need. Their vessels were the envy of many navies. In the modern navy (with the exception of the Peacocks which were purchased off the shelf 2nd hand), all the fleet has been custom built to NS needs.

                  Deirdre was based on a trawler design. The P21 class were modifications of Deirdre's design.

                  Eithne AFAIK was designed from scratch.

                  Roisin is based on the Vard Marine (formerly STX Canada Marine) built Mauritian Vigilant PV (it is 3 metres longer and double the displacement though). Niamh I believe has a very small alterations over Roisin.

                  The P61 class is based on Niamh.




                  Originally posted by Banner View Post
                  As a flagship for the fleet and as the option that seems to "Tick" most of the boxes above and certainly would lead to a massive increase in capability surely purchasing an Absalon of our own is the obvious answer? Very capable as a Patrol Vessel and heli operations, ro ro, etc, huge flexibility, the only issue really is cost. Apart from the initial purchase cost what would ongoing running costs be like?
                  Ok, the Absalon class:
                  Cost is a factor - giving it is probably at least double the cost that was budgeted for the EPV, and that is before you arm it. As the sensor, command systems etc would be based on the weapons fit (if you don't fit them you may save a little). We also wouldn't need the full suite that it has a command ship (even as the flagship). The SAMs and SSMs are in Stanflex containers you could just not buy them. You could also chose not to fit the torpedoes and CIWS. But none of that is going to drastically reduce the cost.

                  Compared to the EPV specs
                  They are within the dims for length and beam, they are OK for speed and range as well.

                  At 100 crew, that more than likely could be reduced most of the time (and would be at least partially based on the sensor and weapons fit).

                  It had a flight deck and hanger for 2 medium lift, we don't need the hanger or 1 of the deck spots (so that could be more storage).

                  For me there are 2 main issues:
                  Her draft is 26% more than the max in the EPV specs

                  She has only 250 lane metres (which even if you take in the hanger space and some of the flight deck) - it isn't big enough
                  Last edited by DeV; 14 January 2016, 12:35.

                  Comment


                  • Maybe what's needed is an FHD, if the Americans ever build such a thing.

                    At around 10,000 tons displacement, this would be a big frigate, larger than foreign-designed ships of analogous concept such as Denmark’s Absalon -class support ship and Germany’s F-125-class frigate.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      HDMS Absalon is well armed and about the right size but cost over €350m (to pay for it you'd need to reduce the army to 1 Bde)
                      HMLMS Rotterdam is much bigger with lighter armament .
                      Absalon is designed as a frigate with a load carrying capability, it is wrong to put her down as an MRV, She is designed and focused on high end war fighting. Her hull is designed for higher speed than other mrvs, fitted with sonar and light helo for asw..... Heavy asuw and aaw missile capability.

                      The issue isn't necessarily individual cost of supply runs..... It's about security of transit and supply.... And more importantly an ability to withdraw from an AO, without relying on a commercial entity.

                      Comment


                      • MRV for NAVAL SERVICE

                        Originally posted by Dogwatch View Post
                        Absalon is designed as a frigate with a load carrying capability, it is wrong to put her down as an MRV, She is designed and focused on high end war fighting. Her hull is designed for higher speed than other mrvs, fitted with sonar and light helo for asw..... Heavy asuw and aaw missile capability.

                        The issue isn't necessarily individual cost of supply runs..... It's about security of transit and supply.... And more importantly an ability to withdraw from an AO, without relying on a commercial entity.
                        The best way to go is to decide the Multi Role Capability we need and commit it to paper as an expression of interest. Send the expression of interest to suitable yards and see what comes up. Pitch the ship at about 4000 tonnes, speed range to 24 knots, range 10,000 at cruise speed 15kts, armament to defend ship and support multi role tasks including landing and recovering troops from non quay wall scenarios.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dogwatch View Post
                          ...The issue isn't necessarily individual cost of supply runs..... It's about security of transit and supply.... And more importantly an ability to withdraw from an AO, without relying on a commercial entity.

                          this, this, absolutely this.

                          the difference between an MRV and a civilian charter is the difference between flying Ryanair to Tenerife and getting on a C-130 in the middle of the Libyan desert at 2am with 7.62 short going off all around you.

                          if you're comparing the circumstances in which you'd use them to work out which is better value you're fundamentally missing the point.

                          Comment


                          • Coy gp as the DF have structured it with UNDOF and EUBG are too small to be effective in the event of 1-2 vehicles being hit. The structure lacks resiliency and effectiveness with the missions that are being talked about here. For amphibious access you would need circa 500 troops + vehicles + heli support + IX + logs

                            Comment


                            • IX?
                              Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                                The best way to go is to decide the Multi Role Capability we need and commit it to paper as an expression of interest. Send the expression of interest to suitable yards and see what comes up. Pitch the ship at about 4000 tonnes, speed range to 24 knots, range 10,000 at cruise speed 15kts, armament to defend ship and support multi role tasks including landing and recovering troops from non quay wall scenarios.
                                Didn't you just do that there?

                                Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
                                Coy gp as the DF have structured it with UNDOF and EUBG are too small to be effective in the event of 1-2 vehicles being hit. The structure lacks resiliency and effectiveness with the missions that are being talked about here. For amphibious access you would need circa 500 troops + vehicles + heli support + IX + logs
                                Which is why they don't operate alone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X