EPV for naval service

[Sparky42]

Technically not, the Spanish already match us with 6 BAM's within 11 years with a further 6 planned for their second batch.

[EUFighter]

Technically am is correct, the sixth BAM will not enter service until Jan/Feb 2019 at which we will have 7 OPV's in service.
Originally the Spanish did plan to build 2 batches each of 6, however the first batch was for 4 and from the second batch so far for 2. Originally there was also to be a logistics support vessel, a underwater rescue vessel, a oceangraphic/hydrograpic vessel and an intelligence gathering vessel. It seems like these latter vessels will not be built as there is no indication of any order being placed.

[ancientmariner]

If I could continue, we are now at an Naval Advent where the Irish Navy has the largest OPV force in Western Europe with 6 ships younger than 19 years old and 3 more than 30 years old. We must fill in some major naval capabilities in our next choices to ensure we can meet our obligations as a bastion island on the Western Approaches to Europe. Capability must be continuous and not subject to major disruption or redacting dependent on a whimsical choice of ship. We must try to construct responses similar and complementing those of our European partners with some emphasis also on HADR.

To continue discussion, we must , as hulls reach 90m+ , bridge the gap between the old OPV and the modern Frigate. Bigger units are capable of being fitted with sufficient role capability to function within the frigate role. We must move beyond being a single instrument band.

[na grohmiti]

To continue discussion, we must , as hulls reach 90m+ , bridge the gap between the old OPV and the modern Frigate. Bigger units are capable of being fitted with sufficient role capability to function within the frigate role. We must move beyond being a single instrument band.

I heard earlier this week, from a source I consider very reliable, that the proposed Extended Patrol/Multi Role vessel has increased in displacement from just under 4000 tonnes as outlined in the original EPV RFT to a vessel of up to 9000 tonnes displ. A budget of €200m was also mentioned. Double that being considered in 2006. This opens us to many more options. Presumably the NS have given up on the idea of fitting it in the Basin, given that there wil be plenty of available quay space in Cork City by the time the vessel would be in service.
This brings us up to the range of the Damen Enforcer LPD9000, for example. Not for a minute suggesting this is where we are going, but it definitely broadens the available designs already in service.

[ancientmariner]

I heard earlier this week, from a source I consider very reliable, that the proposed Extended Patrol/Multi Role vessel has increased in displacement from just under 4000 tonnes as outlined in the original EPV RFT to a vessel of up to 9000 tonnes displ. A budget of €200m was also mentioned. Double that being considered in 2006. This opens us to many more options. Presumably the NS have given up on the idea of fitting it in the Basin, given that there wil be plenty of available quay space in Cork City by the time the vessel would be in service.
This brings us up to the range of the Damen Enforcer LPD9000, for example. Not for a minute suggesting this is where we are going, but it definitely broadens the available designs already in service.

Wisdom would dictate that vessel should fit in the spaces available and under our secure control , This would include drydock , maintenance , and lay-up when required for refits etc. Cork City quays are not the answer other than the bits having gate and guardable entry.

[Sparky42]

I heard earlier this week, from a source I consider very reliable, that the proposed Extended Patrol/Multi Role vessel has increased in displacement from just under 4000 tonnes as outlined in the original EPV RFT to a vessel of up to 9000 tonnes displ. A budget of €200m was also mentioned. Double that being considered in 2006. This opens us to many more options. Presumably the NS have given up on the idea of fitting it in the Basin, given that there wil be plenty of available quay space in Cork City by the time the vessel would be in service.
This brings us up to the range of the Damen Enforcer LPD9000, for example. Not for a minute suggesting this is where we are going, but it definitely broadens the available designs already in service.

Hmm, 9000 tons does open up what it could be, but for €200 million you are still talking a "non frontline ship", there's nothing that would be that size and armed to modern level (ASM, SAM, CWIS, Radar/Sonar) that comes in at that price I'd say. As for where to dock hee, forget Cork City, the docklands area once the Port moves down river will end up as housing, there's no way that it would end up for NS usage. Next question is what about the Dockyard? What off the shelf 9K designs fits into the mouth of the Graving Dock? I don't suppose who ever it was gave any suggestion that we might see any formal movement on things?

[EUFighter]

To continue discussion, we must , as hulls reach 90m+ , bridge the gap between the old OPV and the modern Frigate. Bigger units are capable of being fitted with sufficient role capability to function within the frigate role. We must move beyond being a single instrument band.

To be able to define such vessels we need to understand the missions that the Naval Service has been tasked with. For example people talk about HADR yet this currently is not a mission of the Naval Service. Enda Kenny did state in 2016 that the Eithne replacement should "have a naval vessel that is a fully functional hospital, able to respond to humanitarian and other emergencies across the globe", but this was just a wish. The government can wish for a lot of things but those wishes need to be put into mission statements for the DF to be able to plan, equip and train for those missions. Just a ship with a "fully functional" hospital will not provide this capacity.

But even if some form of HADR was to be written into the NS roles how does current fleet match the current defined roles/missions.

Deterring intrusive or aggressive acts.
• Limited: the current sensor and weapon systems of the NS provide only a capability against civil or para-military threats. There is current no capacity to deter a military aggressor.
o

1. Ability to fight in low visibility environment is hampered by lack of radar fire control systems.
2. o No Anti-Air weapons systems: apart from crewed 20mm cannon/machine guns, which are non-directed.
3. o No anti-ship capability such as ASM for use against a military target.
4. o No anti-submarine weapons systems: no depth charges or anti-sub torpedoes.

• An intrusive/aggressive act need not be confined to surface actions. The air and underwater environments must also be considered. This should include protection of vital under-sea links key for the state such as communications line and energy pipe/lines.

Conducting maritime surveillance
• At present the NS is equipped to conduct surface surveillance but lacks any capacity to conduct either air or underwater maritime surveillance.
• Originally the LE Eithne was equipped for such roles but she is the only vessel in service ever so equipped.

Maintaining an armed naval presence
• The main issue would be the number of vessels and crews needed to maintain a naval presence.

Ensuring right of passage
• Most would be covered by “Deterring intrusive or aggressive acts”, “Conducting maritime surveillance” and “Maintaining an armed naval presence”
• Main gap is the ability to clear and keep clear passages of mine and other under-water devices. Here current apart from NS Diving Section there is no capability.

Protecting marine assets
• Top of the list are fisheries, a role that makes up the vast majority of current operations and for which the NS is well equipped.
• In addition to national fishery protect there is also the NEAFC to which the state through the EU has a responsibility for. This extends to just east of the southern tip if Greenland.
• Oil/gas platforms and other marine energy sources which in future would also include wind farms.

Army sea lift
• In real terms none existent; the P30/50/60 can carry some army supplies such as SUVs and TEU containers but beyond that there is nothing. No ability to transport MOWAGS or 8x8 trucks.
• No ability greater than RIBs to be able to independently put any army personnel or equipment ashore. Reliance on suitably equipped friendly port facilities.
• No onboard facilities for the transport of more than a platoon size contingent.

Close naval support
• In real terms none existent; the 76mm is a capable naval weapon but in terms of fire power and range it is well below that required for close naval support. The 76mm fires a 6kg shell while the 105mm LG has a 15kg shell, a 5” naval shell is 30kg. Also without a suitable CMS it would be difficult for any form of indirect fire; this would limit the 76mm to direct fire modes.
• No onboard helicopter means the NS cannot provide any local airlift should it not be provided by the AC.
• No on-board facilities to be able to support shore based operations during initial stage of any operation where suitable shore based support is not available; Level II hospital, portable water production/supply etc.
• Lack of ESM, CIWS and decoys mean that any vessel operating close to shore will be vulnerable to shore based weapons.

So how should the band look?

[Herald]

Canterbury is 9000 tonnes.

[Sparky42]

Canterbury is 9000 tonnes.

The Endurance class is around that as well, talking about the Base, wasn't there plans/proposals for a deep water berth for the base?

[Rhodes]

I heard earlier this week, from a source I consider very reliable, that the proposed Extended Patrol/Multi Role vessel has increased in displacement from just under 4000 tonnes as outlined in the original EPV RFT to a vessel of up to 9000 tonnes displ. A budget of €200m was also mentioned. Double that being considered in 2006. This opens us to many more options. Presumably the NS have given up on the idea of fitting it in the Basin, given that there wil be plenty of available quay space in Cork City by the time the vessel would be in service.
This brings us up to the range of the Damen Enforcer LPD9000, for example. Not for a minute suggesting this is where we are going, but it definitely broadens the available designs already in service.

Sounds like your source was reading that Irish Examiner article last year about the New Zealand MRV, a ship of that scale has been publicly ruled out.

[EUFighter]

I heard earlier this week, from a source I consider very reliable, that the proposed Extended Patrol/Multi Role vessel has increased in displacement from just under 4000 tonnes as outlined in the original EPV RFT to a vessel of up to 9000 tonnes displ. A budget of €200m was also mentioned. Double that being considered in 2006. This opens us to many more options. Presumably the NS have given up on the idea of fitting it in the Basin, given that there wil be plenty of available quay space in Cork City by the time the vessel would be in service.
This brings us up to the range of the Damen Enforcer LPD9000, for example. Not for a minute suggesting this is where we are going, but it definitely broadens the available designs already in service.

If true, then it is in the LPD range in terms of displacement and cost but it also matches HMNZS Canterbury; that is something we should not follow. Better a purposed design vessel from bottom up such as the Damen Enforcer family than something based upon an Isle of Man ferry. If Far East ship builders are excluded then in Europe at the moment that leave Damen & Navantia with smaller versions of the Enforces class or Fincantieri with the Improved San Giusto class.

[hptmurphy]

Amazing that its only taken two years to bring the thread a full 360 degrees........and we are still no closer to what is to be built...and when!

[Sparky42]

Amazing that its only taken two years to bring the thread a full 360 degrees........and we are still no closer to what is to be built...and when!

To be fair in those two years we've had the unplanned Shaw in the mix.

[EUFighter]

Amazing that its only taken two years to bring the thread a full 360 degrees........and we are still no closer to what is to be built...and when!

Give it time the discussion is only 12 years old!
The Germans have being building a new airport in Berlin for 12 years and it will not open until at least 2021 and they had 15 years of discussion before they even started building!

[Sparky42]

Give it time the discussion is only 12 years old!
The Germans have being building a new airport in Berlin for 12 years and it will not open until at least 2021 and they had 15 years of discussion before they even started building!

Oh dear god don't mention that airport, the scale of the screw ups in that are truely epic, efficient Germans my arse.