PDA

View Full Version : navy



zone 1
13th April 2009, 16:25
what kind of guns for the new ships for irish navy will they go down the lines of more 76mm . or can we see more in lines of defence ...

Goldie fish
13th April 2009, 17:55
I'd say 76mm will be the standard platform as main armament for all future vessels.
Its more practical than a deck crewed weapon in rough sea/weather.

Rhein Metall seems to be the secondary of choice too. Not sure how many spare ones we have lyin around.

hptmurphy
13th April 2009, 20:16
By the time anything new comes on line I reckon the PVs will have begun to retire already and the Rh202s will be redundant so will by default become the seconaday weapon of the new vessel if not it will be the .5 as happened with the peacocks,Niamh and Roisin pending delivery of Rh202s

The 76mm is the primary weapon of choice and given this is the predominant weapon in the NS I would asy it will continue on any new ships.

GPMGs will still feature along with 'Wallop' 57mm flare launcers.

zone 1
15th April 2009, 20:53
yes id say that you are right on that one

hptmurphy
15th April 2009, 23:32
TBH I think you have to look at where the NS has been historically with weapons to see where it has evolved to.

Given that up to the recent past we operated weapons that were of WW2 vintage with gunnery skillss that were developed during that era with very basic equipment that was carried through from the corvettes through the sweepers onto the PV's..Eithne was the first vessel to employ modern weapons systems and hers were some what of an anomally toward world trends at the time.
We were forced to move on with the purchase of the peacocks with their 76mm main weapon, the Rh202 Rheinmetall is an impressive weapon although not cheap and some body took an advantage of the Germans off loading theirs so we got a chance to upgrade on the cheap.

Nothing wrong with the GamBo, rate of fire was abit slow in comparrsion to the Rh202, but cost wise it was a good refit for the PV's as the older Oerlikons were of 1940s vintage with the magazines causing major problem. worked on a clock work spring and were at the end of their lives, the guns in many cases were immaculate and even in 1986 i remember drawing a brand new one from stores still in its packing grease.

There were two types of oerlikon in service which to the uneducated eye wasn't that obvious, the main difference being in the recoil spring.The American one had a square cross section as opposed to the UK built ones which had a round cross section, the former being the easier to strip.

Ammunition wasn't a major problem but interchangibilty of ammo between the various 20mm 's was. the older weapons had a shorter brass cartridge as opposed to the alloy one in use in the GamBos and Rh202s, which in itself caused supply problems as this ammo wasn't interchangable either.

The older weapon also had 181 working parts as opposed to the five groups in a Rh202 making it easier to train gunners.

On the SG3 it took less time to teach all roles on the Bofors L40/60, maintaince etc than it did to teach stripping the oerlikon..have to say I loved that weapon..real work of engineering art.

So looking at it retrospectively gunner has evolved hugely over the past twenty years given we had given the previous 40 in total stagnation.

What we have now is as well proven as what we had twenty years ago and still has a considerable life expectancy. so from that I wouldn't expect any major changes in the format of the primary and secondary weapons in use on board near future Naval Service vessels.

Probably far beyond what you wanted to know.

paul g
16th April 2009, 00:05
The choice of 57mm for eithne was actually a good one, and perhaps better than 76mm, as you say it was forced upon us by default. The american navy and coast guard for example are moving from the 76mm to 57mm.

The only possible change is that we might see a CIWS fitted to the EPV if it serves overseas, or they might move to remote control weapons for the 12.7mm, in the sea protector version.

But then again, best wait to see what the tenders for the EPV comes back like

I remember visiting the naval base in the sumer of 1986, and seeing a group of trainees being lectured on the Oerlikons, always remember the instructor turning to the class and saying that despite the interuption, they'd better remember all the parts when the lecture was finished.

hptmurphy
16th April 2009, 00:20
Me..I was on a gunnery course in summer of '86.One was run in may June..the other august and july six weeks..started the firts one in june but was invalided off after the bofors and had to catch up in the second one,,,Bofors and oerlikon fired for the second course on Aisling and then posted to Eithne were I never used the 40/60 or Oerlikon again..went straight to Rh"202 and recieved my training from Golden Rivet. Were about four of us as O/Sea qualified to use it Fired it a bout half a dozen times ..awesome weapon...

57mm on Eithne had one major draw back as the autoloaders had to be reloaded by hand from the mag lift and there was only about 50 rds RU ammo available as opposed to the carosuel inuse on the 76mm. Golden Rivet being more qualified than me on the 57mm would be the expert

The %&mm turret had to be crewed although could be fired remotely from the ops room and possiblyyfrom the TDS on each brindge wing if local control was switched over.

As a weapon system I could not fault the 57mm as it was good..but it was army ordnace who purcahsed it and not the NS first choice.

the newer version is even more capabalbe but since we have tended toward 76mm I'd say we will have it for quite some time

paul g
16th April 2009, 21:59
I visited Haulbowline in July 1986, and the instructor in the gunnery class ( which you were probably in) made a deep and abiding impression on me. Got shown around by an officer, Cormac something or other, who was serving on the Banba at the time, he told me he changed his shirt four times a day, so that he could pick up ratings on their dress, the other lasting impression.

Funny old world isn't it.

zone 1
16th April 2009, 22:02
yes i beleive that officer is a lt cdr now still the same

Goldie fish
16th April 2009, 22:39
Rynne, most likely.

hptmurphy
16th April 2009, 22:51
Certainly wasn't serving on the Banba at the time as she had been decomissioned and sold for scrap two years earlier.

Officers didn't pick us up on our dress in those days as most of us were in rags...lol.

Funnily enough the both the PO and LS instructing on that course had undergone their gunnery training for the minesweepers in the 70's in Whale Island...which is the nirvana of Naval Gunners.Fantastic instructors and were still instructing the same weapons 25 years later.

paul g
16th April 2009, 23:02
Could have been the Fola?, it is after all over twenty years ago, it was an Old Ton Classand it was tied up, awaiting disposal, was told that the next time it set sail would be to the scrap yard.

Anyway, it was my one and only visit to Cork.

hptmurphy
16th April 2009, 23:09
Fola and Grainne most likely and they did sail again, but it was in january of 1988 indeed to scrap in Spain under tow.

they were twoed outr seperatly the Fola going a very very miserable sunday morning and I was on duty and took some photos which were amongst the last ever to be taken of an Irish Minesweeper.

Even under tow to scrap they still looked handsome. The naval association website has some nice pictures of the sweepers and there have been some nice ones psoted here.

I had a jolly on one while in recruits, the Grainne. Made it out as far as Roches point and was towed back... the ignomy of my first ever day at sea..and her last.

I'll ask him which one it was ....

ancientmariner
17th July 2019, 09:53
what kind of guns for the new ships for irish navy will they go down the lines of more 76mm . or can we see more in lines of defence ...

Main gun in or about 76mm gives a bit of reach and support fire. The current philosophy is to include a deterrent or a means of dealing with swarm or mass attacks. The RN Type 23's have added two 30mm auto guns AND on same mount a new multirole Thales Missile system with 5 X 10+/- Kg missiles. Thet are surface to surface, surface to air, and in Helos- air to surface. It was successfully tested last week in the Irish Sea against a radio controlled boat. The missile can also be shoulder fired. The naval version is laser beam riding- Range 6km-speed 1.5mach. Principle use- boats- drones-aircraft.
The system has the Naval name of Martlet MRM. They have ordered 1000 over, we could order 10 mounts and 150 rounds.

ancientmariner
20th July 2019, 08:53
Main gun in or about 76mm gives a bit of reach and support fire. The current philosophy is to include a deterrent or a means of dealing with swarm or mass attacks. The RN Type 23's have added two 30mm auto guns AND on same mount a new multirole Thales Missile system with 5 X 10+/- Kg missiles. Thet are surface to surface, surface to air, and in Helos- air to surface. It was successfully tested last week in the Irish Sea against a radio controlled boat. The missile can also be shoulder fired. The naval version is laser beam riding- Range 6km-speed 1.5mach. Principle use- boats- drones-aircraft.
The system has the Naval name of Martlet MRM. They have ordered 1000 over, we could order 10 mounts and 150 rounds.

There is no doubt that the Political world is becoming more aggressively unstable, with a capacity to create hot spots overnight. Sea trade is very vulnerable to disruption, as even in packed waterways ships can be picked off by armed fast boats. We may be part of that deterrent and should arm our ships accordingly. Replace 20mm with 30mm and add the Martlet suite.

EUFighter
20th July 2019, 09:32
There is no doubt that the Political world is becoming more aggressively unstable, with a capacity to create hot spots overnight. Sea trade is very vulnerable to disruption, as even in packed waterways ships can be picked off by armed fast boats. We may be part of that deterrent and should arm our ships accordingly. Replace 20mm with 30mm and add the Martlet suite.

It is not just at sea but also on land we see a move up from 20/25mm to 30mm. But it is not just in calibre that the new mounts differ, there is also a long overdue replacement of the Mark 1 eyeball FCS with a modern remotely operated, fully stabilized with their own electro-optics. Some systems now like their land based cousin have programmable munitions while others have either SSM's or SAM's. But we should not forget newer systems such as high energy weapons or non-lethal options.

hptmurphy
20th July 2019, 23:41
It is not just at sea but also on land we see a move up from 20/25mm to 30mm.

Back the early noughties where 20mm was declared to be suboptimal and the Germans off loaded some of their Rh202 Rheinmetalls to us, shortly after we had gone with the 2Omm South African versions of the GIAT on the AML fleet. the RN had dallied with Oerlikon 30mm weaons for secondar weapons on larger ships and primary weapons on minor vessles, we've got it right with the OTO Melara 76mm weapon, maybe it is time to revisit the 20mm weapons and now consider what the RN has done with Martlet.

na grohmiti
21st July 2019, 10:08
WHile there is always room for manually operated weaponry, Local control is always superior as a first line defence. There are a range of RWS platforms available for naval use, operating weapons already in use, if the move to 27mm or 30mm was considered too heavy handed. That said, it took a while for the P50s to get 20mm. Until the Rh202 were gifted, 50 cal was the secondary of the day, on the rail of 01 deck, with big blind spots.

WhingeNot
21st July 2019, 12:22
Would agree with above, using an existing weapon type e.g. a 20mm for a RWS, instead of jumping to 27/30mm might be considered more feasible (i’d discount 27mm, as it is not in PDF use).

A new, high-up position, to front and/ or rear of the ships, for a 20mm RWS (compatible with existing 20mm), and to supplement the two existing 20mm guns, could be a good approach, giving each ship x3 (or x4) different, 20mm positions.

Also, could a SAM(s) mount, such as the PDF’s RBS70, and/or French Mistral(s) be retro-fitted onto the existing 20mm mounts? This is noting that manually operated single (and twin) naval missile mounts/ stands exist for the RBS70 (and Mistral).

Also as noted above, there seem to be a number of 20mm type RWS mounts available, that appear to be quite small, and include the Reutech 'Super-Rogue '3 (of the ‘Super-Rogue’ (!) family), that seems to include x4 of the same ‘LMM’ missile as the RN’s re-jiggged 30mm RWS with x5 missile mounts.

EG.s
Naval/ Nexter – Narwhal
Reutech – Super Rogue
Escribano – Sentinel
Oerlikon – Searanger
Oto-Melara – Marlin

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/07/thales-on-track-with-fasgwl-lmm-martlet-program-for-royal-navys-wildcat-helicopters/

Looking at above, dare i ask what happened to the 20mm guns on the PDFs ALM20s?! (notwithstanding non-compatible ammunition feeds with NS guns i think).

hptmurphy
21st July 2019, 22:45
Until the Rh202 were gifted, 50 cal was the secondary o

To be pedantic...only on the newer vessels at the time, the Gambo was the primary secondary system since 1986. There was no reason this shouldn't have continued only the Rhinos were 'gifted'


if the move to 27mm or 30mm was considered too heavy handed

I'd suggest retaining the 20mm systems and fitting a single point 30mm system aft of the funnel somewhere and add a missle system to it.

ancientmariner
22nd July 2019, 09:11
To be pedantic...only on the newer vessels at the time, the Gambo was the primary secondary system since 1986. There was no reason this shouldn't have continued only the Rhinos were 'gifted'



I' duggest retaining the 20mm systems and fitting a single point 30mm system aft of the funnel somewhere and add a missle system to it.

As a fall back position, retaining the manual 20mm single mounts by 2, with an added AUTO 30mm fitted with co-mounted ( Thales ) MS Martlet would be an improvement and bridge the range deficiency on our ships, from 1000m to 4000m. Let's not go raking about in the scrapyard for old manual mounts.
Remote mounts in AUTO mode provides better Target ID and engagement and prevents accidents from missile propellant ignition.

EUFighter
23rd July 2019, 12:28
Would agree with above, using an existing weapon type e.g. a 20mm for a RWS, instead of jumping to 27/30mm might be considered more feasible (i’d discount 27mm, as it is not in PDF use).

A new, high-up position, to front and/ or rear of the ships, for a 20mm RWS (compatible with existing 20mm), and to supplement the two existing 20mm guns, could be a good approach, giving each ship x3 (or x4) different, 20mm positions.

Also, could a SAM(s) mount, such as the PDF’s RBS70, and/or French Mistral(s) be retro-fitted onto the existing 20mm mounts? This is noting that manually operated single (and twin) naval missile mounts/ stands exist for the RBS70 (and Mistral).

Also as noted above, there seem to be a number of 20mm type RWS mounts available, that appear to be quite small, and include the Reutech 'Super-Rogue '3 (of the ‘Super-Rogue’ (!) family), that seems to include x4 of the same ‘LMM’ missile as the RN’s re-jiggged 30mm RWS with x5 missile mounts.

EG.s
Naval/ Nexter – Narwhal
Reutech – Super Rogue
Escribano – Sentinel
Oerlikon – Searanger
Oto-Melara – Marlin

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/07/thales-on-track-with-fasgwl-lmm-martlet-program-for-royal-navys-wildcat-helicopters/

Looking at above, dare i ask what happened to the 20mm guns on the PDFs ALM20s?! (notwithstanding non-compatible ammunition feeds with NS guns i think).

That the 27x145mm round is currently not used by the PDF I would ignore as that logic removes ever having a new type of shell. Also now only the NS use the 20mm rounds!

As for adding more mix to the munitions carried on the ships I would guard against it especially when it comes to missiles. These need special handling against shocks that will be present in an Atlantic storm!

There are numerous RWS using the Mk44 Bushmaster or copies of it but one reason why I prefer to replace the Rh202s with their distant cousin the BK27 is the rate of fire and range. A Mk44 has a rate of 100/200 rpm, this is fine for slow moving targets but for fast moving seaborne or airborne a higher rate is preferred. The Rhinos were developed as an anti-aircraft gun and thus have a maximum rate of 880/1030rpm with a range 1600m for air targets and 2500m for surface.

The BK27 (basis for MLG27) is an aircraft cannon designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground roles, Thus it has a rate of fire of 1000-1700rpm selectable +/-100rpm. It also has a range out to 4000m for surface targets. The advantage of this rate is that the mount can cover low rate burst for slow low threat targets and high rate bursts against high speed targets either seaborne or airborne.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_27mm-145_mlg27.php

ancientmariner
24th July 2019, 09:20
That the 27x145mm round is currently not used by the PDF I would ignore as that logic removes ever having a new type of shell. Also now only the NS use the 20mm rounds!

As for adding more mix to the munitions carried on the ships I would guard against it especially when it comes to missiles. These need special handling against shocks that will be present in an Atlantic storm!

There are numerous RWS using the Mk44 Bushmaster or copies of it but one reason why I prefer to replace the Rh202s with their distant cousin the BK27 is the rate of fire and range. A Mk44 has a rate of 100/200 rpm, this is fine for slow moving targets but for fast moving seaborne or airborne a higher rate is preferred. The Rhinos were developed as an anti-aircraft gun and thus have a maximum rate of 880/1030rpm with a range 1600m for air targets and 2500m for surface.

The BK27 (basis for MLG27) is an aircraft cannon designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground roles, Thus it has a rate of fire of 1000-1700rpm selectable +/-100rpm. It also has a range out to 4000m for surface targets. The advantage of this rate is that the mount can cover low rate burst for slow low threat targets and high rate bursts against high speed targets either seaborne or airborne.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_27mm-145_mlg27.php

The basic problem to overcome for all of our ships is the endemic under-armament for normal patrol duties in even low intensity operations. The BK 27 or the Puma type 30mm armament coupled with remote mounting, to include co-mounted missile system , would fill a gap, and deal with swarm attacks. The USN include armament, on deck carried AV's, as part of ship defence, when on board. Versatile weapon system should allow single/low rate of fire as well as higher AA rates.

na grohmiti
24th July 2019, 09:58
It's an uphill battle when you have a DoD that has no interest in anything remotely aggressive in nature, and an element within the naval base happy to retain obsolete, but user friendly weaponry over maintenance heavy modern defensive armament. There was quite a fight to get the 76mm up front on the P60s. After all, there as still surplus 40mm L70 lying about and the RN has equipped it's most recent opv with smaller calibre main armament.
(That has proved to be a mistake as the RN OPVs become the only vessels available to escort Russian Naval flotilla stretching their muscles in the English channel.)

DeV
24th July 2019, 12:54
It's an uphill battle when you have a DoD that has no interest in anything remotely aggressive in nature, and an element within the naval base happy to retain obsolete, but user friendly weaponry over maintenance heavy modern defensive armament. There was quite a fight to get the 76mm up front on the P60s. After all, there as still surplus 40mm L70 lying about and the RN has equipped it's most recent opv with smaller calibre main armament.
(That has proved to be a mistake as the RN OPVs become the only vessels available to escort Russian Naval flotilla stretching their muscles in the English channel.)

Not forgetting maintenance heavy means personnel required

ancientmariner
24th July 2019, 20:50
Not forgetting maintenance heavy means personnel required

The Navy must know what it NEEDS and not be led or cajoled by Ordnance Corps or DOD. 30mm armament is ok if it is in a 360deg format with two or more controlled units and backed up with a missile system. Spare L70 should be vehicle mounted to be deployable at any location in the country, assuming that ammunition is available.
It struck me, with ports in short supply we need to identify withdrawal locations for our ships in times of emergency- Killary harbour etc.

hptmurphy
25th July 2019, 11:21
The Navy must know what it NEEDS and not be led or cajoled by Ordnance Corps or DOD. 30mm armament is ok if it is in a 360deg format with two or more controlled units and backed up with a missile system. Spare L70 should be vehicle mounted to be deployable at any location in the country, assuming that ammunition is available.
It struck me, with ports in short supply we need to identify withdrawal locations for our ships in times of emergency- Killary harbour etc.

Disagree with L40/70 s being available in any format. If we begin to become amenable to retrograde equipment we may fall victim to our own shortsightedness. The willingness to adapt and modify has always been our down fall...World War two equipment still in use up to the 1970s in some cases becauses someone repeatedly refused to go out on a limb and discard it.

Too many stop gap arrangement in place, if someone in Naval Planning decreees with justifable back up that we need a 30mm turret with missile capability, there should be no step back until it is achieved.

golden rivet
29th July 2019, 22:37
no one there to clean them ...oh wait loads of junior officers...

ancientmariner
30th July 2019, 10:16
Disagree with L40/70 s being available in any format.

Too many stop gap arrangement in place, if someone in Naval Planning decreees with justifable back up that we need a 30mm turret with missile capability, there should be no step back until it is achieved.

Just surmising that other budget restricted combatants stick fairly big calibre units onto trucks and use them in multirole su/air modes. Possibly better than NOT getting any potential from them. In 2019 terms if you spend 60m plus on ships you must invest in it's Defence . The doctrine on Close in Defence requires controlled high rates of fire and missile systems . We should also add elements of offence such as support fire by a higher calibre weapon and NSM. Some systems on offer are more easily retrofitted and do not need deck penetrations . Matters are easier if the correct type of Radars are fitted at the outset to provide tracking and FC data. A bit like buying the cot when you know a baby is due!!

hptmurphy
30th July 2019, 12:46
Just surmising that other budget restricted combatants stick fairly big calibre units onto trucks and use them in multirole su/air modes

Third world 'technicals' are a far cry from wheel based artillery that South Africa and the Czech Republic use.


We should also add elements of offence such as support fire by a higher calibre weapon

Put a 127mm gun on a vessel that we already have problems fitting with 76mm, is a bit like buy the pram for twins when you know you barely have the budget for a single baby

ropebag
30th July 2019, 14:06
Just surmising that other budget restricted combatants stick fairly big calibre units onto trucks and use them in multirole su/air modes. Possibly better than NOT getting any potential from them....

Nope.

Introducing, or keeping on, a weapon system has a huge tail cost - training people to use it, training people to maintain it, training people to train people to use it, training people to train people to maintain it, designing, and maintaining a certification/audit system to manage all the training and maintenance - all for a weapon with a marginal use at best.

If you wanted to piss €50 notes up against a wall for no real world benefit then go for it....

ancientmariner
30th July 2019, 14:44
Nope.

Introducing, or keeping on, a weapon system has a huge tail cost - training people to use it, training people to maintain it, training people to train people to use it, training people to train people to maintain it, designing, and maintaining a certification/audit system to manage all the training and maintenance - all for a weapon with a marginal use at best.

If you wanted to piss €50 notes up against a wall for no real world benefit then go for it....

There is always an excuse but if its there, and there are Engineers in the country , and small engineering companies abound, then a way to use existing equipment could be maximised. Boarding it gets it out of your hair but weakens a potential asset. P31's potential was diminished by in-house decisions but the means and way always remained while the ship was alive. Our philosophy will have to be one of maximum use and adaption of existing equipments.

ancientmariner
30th July 2019, 14:56
By higher calibre weapon I mean the main gun fitted 57mm/76mm. Just to ensure it is programmed to engage a selected shore target by the most accurate means possible. We also need to consider NSM. Our budget is misused , If you allocate a total annual figure to Defence then the money should be spent totally. If the Pay element is unspent then it should be spent on structures and military equipment. If they take back 100million Euro every year that is a lot of military/naval potential.

ancientmariner
11th January 2020, 15:12
By higher calibre weapon I mean the main gun fitted 57mm/76mm. Just to ensure it is programmed to engage a selected shore target by the most accurate means possible. We also need to consider NSM. Our budget is misused , If you allocate a total annual figure to Defence then the money should be spent totally. If the Pay element is unspent then it should be spent on structures and military equipment. If they take back 100million Euro every year that is a lot of military/naval potential.

Just a few interesting things about necessity and capability. In the search for the missing fisherman, an AIS picture on FB , of the search area off Hook Head to Tuskar, shows the position of all the participating vessels and includes one ship passing through and a virtual wreck buoy. It demonstrates that with the correct technology you can monitor your AOP effectively. In contrast we cannot, at this time ,do the same, within military/naval control for our airspace. The ability of others to historically monitor the skies over Teheran and confirm a missile strike is an example of where we need to be as soon as possible. We still have a big vacuum in UW surveillance and in all departments lack the edge to intercept and take control of intrusions. There is nothing to stop an OPV type vessel being fitted to frigate standard for Defensive purposes.

EUFighter
11th January 2020, 15:43
Just a few interesting things about necessity and capability. In the search for the missing fisherman, an AIS picture on FB , of the search area off Hook Head to Tuskar, shows the position of all the participating vessels and includes one ship passing through and a virtual wreck buoy. It demonstrates that with the correct technology you can monitor your AOP effectively. In contrast we cannot, at this time ,do the same, within military/naval control for our airspace. The ability of others to historically monitor the skies over Teheran and confirm a missile strike is an example of where we need to be as soon as possible. We still have a big vacuum in UW surveillance and in all departments lack the edge to intercept and take control of intrusions. There is nothing to stop an OPV type vessel being fitted to frigate standard for Defensive purposes.

AIS is only mandated for passenger vessels and those with a gross tonnage of 300 or more. All aircraft flying in controlled airspace should also be equipped with a transponder so the two method of tracking are very similar. Remember small boats like those which could traffic illegal cargos do not need to have AIS. Likewise low flying small aircraft outside controlled space does also not need a transponder. And it is not that we have never had such systems in the NS, even the old Flowers were equipped to fight underwater threats. What is needed is something like a modern version of the Eithne, she did have a decent sensor suite both for air and underwater. A modern version would be slightly larger and as the environment has changed have some form of active/protection system. Looking at the USCG there new Heritage class cutters (based on the VARD7-110) would be along the line on what could fit the bill.

na grohmiti
11th January 2020, 16:47
There are satellite systems available, at relatively low cost, capable of providing a real time surveillance view of our waters, with no requirement for transponders. In fact the ships that have transponders make finding the ones hiding easier in the clutter of targets.
They can be launched commercially, for our use exclusively.

ancientmariner
12th January 2020, 01:33
AIS is only mandated for passenger vessels and those with a gross tonnage of 300 or more. All aircraft flying in controlled airspace should also be equipped with a transponder so the two method of tracking are very similar. Remember small boats like those which could traffic illegal cargos do not need to have AIS. Likewise low flying small aircraft outside controlled space does also not need a transponder. And it is not that we have never had such systems in the NS, even the old Flowers were equipped to fight underwater threats. What is needed is something like a modern version of the Eithne, she did have a decent sensor suite both for air and underwater. A modern version would be slightly larger and as the environment has changed have some form of active/protection system. Looking at the USCG there new Heritage class cutters (based on the VARD7-110) would be along the line on what could fit the bill.

I'm not fully conversant with all the regulations on transponders but you will find that irish regulations require all minor and major fishing vessels within our waters have to be fitted with an approved transponder and an EPIRB as in case of the vessel that went down. With aircraft fitted all are supposed to emit Code Charlie for position and altitude which includes all military aircraft as well. Right now we are short of building a picture of all activity in our surface , subsurface, and airspace. Currently it may be a requirement that vessels between 12 and 24 metres have to be fitted with radar transponders and EPIRBS. Effectively very few ships are NOT fitted with transponders but not all are transmitting all the time including military vessels. Code Charlie is not to be switched off per se.

EUFighter
12th January 2020, 20:03
There are satellite systems available, at relatively low cost, capable of providing a real time surveillance view of our waters, with no requirement for transponders. In fact the ships that have transponders make finding the ones hiding easier in the clutter of targets.
They can be launched commercially, for our use exclusively.

Can you give me the name of the system or provider?
The only satellites I know that are fitted with SAR capable of identifying a vessel at sea cost several hundred million euros, so I would like to expand my knowledge.

pym
12th January 2020, 22:56
Can you give me the name of the system or provider?
The only satellites I know that are fitted with SAR capable of identifying a vessel at sea cost several hundred million euros, so I would like to expand my knowledge.

https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?26338-Anistiamo

ancientmariner
12th January 2020, 23:06
https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?26338-Anistiamo

In our case tracking and surveillance should use existing systems and down links where available. we should use our membership of the EU to gain capabilities on the foot of alliances and groups.

DeV
13th January 2020, 11:01
In our case tracking and surveillance should use existing systems and down links where available. we should use our membership of the EU to gain capabilities on the foot of alliances and groups.

Already happening/happened

EUFighter
13th January 2020, 16:35
https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?26338-Anistiamo

Thanks for the reminder.

From what I understood at the time the Anistiamo was an effort by Kongsberg to remarket free capacity on existing satellites primarily the German TerraSat-X. This I understood was to be an interim measure until a dedicated Irish chain of satellites could be built and launched. I had not seen any currently available low cost, real time, exclusive use satellites.

Taking the TerraSat-X as an example of a radar equipped satellite it is a joint effort from DLR (German NASA) and Airbus with the latter responsible for the commercial use. The reason why commercial use is available is that the satellite cost €180m and as it is in a low Earth orbit it only passes over Germany every 3-4 day and then only for a few minutes. To understand this it is necessary to understand how LEO satellites work (not how Hollywood shows them). Unlike GSO satellites (like weather and TV) the orbit of the satellite moves constantly in an orbit over the North Pole moving 24deg (approx.) every orbit, and each orbit is around 95 minutes. Luckily for us living in a northern latitude the re-visit time is shorter than someone at the equator. But it still means a re-visit time of 2-3 days. And then there is the resolution, in scan mode it can cover a strip about 150km wide with a 16m resolution. This means that something 16m x 16m will show up as a single pixel. This is fine for a large cargo ship but anything below the size of our OPV-L will not always show-up. The resolution can be improved with the scan width will reduce, down to less than 1m is possible. However satellites such as TerraSat-X have enough fuel for normally 10yrs with no refuelling possibilities. This fuel is for the satellite to maintain its altitude and in LEO the orbit is constantly decaying and the satellite needs to be boosted in altitude every now and then. This fuel can also be used to change the track of the satellite but this tends to burn the fuel rather quickly.

While satellites can provide some support they are limited and cannot provide real-time at the moment. There will still be a need for airborne or surface radar to identify possible targets of interest which then have to be investigated.

na grohmiti
20th January 2020, 12:59
Can you give me the name of the system or provider?
The only satellites I know that are fitted with SAR capable of identifying a vessel at sea cost several hundred million euros, so I would like to expand my knowledge.

https://www.iceye.com/press/press-releases/iceye-dark-vessel-detection-now-globally-available-for-government-organizations?hs_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
One example of what's available.

EUFighter
20th January 2020, 18:20
https://www.iceye.com/press/press-releases/iceye-dark-vessel-detection-now-globally-available-for-government-organizations?hs_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
One example of what's available.

Thanks for that.
I have had a good look at what ICEYE are offering and it could be something useful provided the "proof of concept" satellites work, that they are able to develop the capabilities. Naturally this will rely on them being able to fund the project during the early stages.
They seem to be trying a lot of different things at the moment:

ICEYE-X1 was launched 12 Jan 2018 on an Indian PSLV and was developed in-house. It is a 70kg satellite with an expected life of 3 years.
ICEYE-X2 was launched 3 Dec 2018 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 and has some Polish components. It is an upgrade to allow 3m resolution.
ICEYE-X3 was launched 5 May 2019 on US/NZ Electron KS low cost launcher and is part of the US Army Harbinger project. It combines a York Space Systems bus with the ICEYE SAR payload. It too has an expected life of 3 years.
ICEYE-X4&5 were launched together 5 July 2019 on a Russian Soyuz-2.

It seems that they are in the early stages of developing their system and it will be sometime before they will be a fully operation one. That is not to say it should not be explored but the costs and limitations of such a system should be clear upfront. As we would only ever be able to utilize the satellite for a small proportion of its orbits sharing will always be put forward be the bean counters. If this happens then nothing will get off the ground. It take someone to take the plunge and put the initial constellation in orbit, then as it grows others will join. Really looking at this it should be an EU project maybe Frontex, but as we know even in PESCO national interests take precedence. So maybe it could be something for us together with the Finns and the Poles to start.

ancientmariner
20th January 2020, 20:14
Thanks for that.
I have had a good look at what ICEYE are offering and it could be something useful provided the "proof of concept" satellites work, that they are able to develop the capabilities. Naturally this will rely on them being able to fund the project during the early stages.
They seem to be trying a lot of different things at the moment:

ICEYE-X1 was launched 12 Jan 2018 on an Indian PSLV and was developed in-house. It is a 70kg satellite with an expected life of 3 years.
ICEYE-X2 was launched 3 Dec 2018 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 and has some Polish components. It is an upgrade to allow 3m resolution.
ICEYE-X3 was launched 5 May 2019 on US/NZ Electron KS low cost launcher and is part of the US Army Harbinger project. It combines a York Space Systems bus with the ICEYE SAR payload. It too has an expected life of 3 years.
ICEYE-X4&5 were launched together 5 July 2019 on a Russian Soyuz-2.

It seems that they are in the early stages of developing their system and it will be sometime before they will be a fully operation one. That is not to say it should not be explored but the costs and limitations of such a system should be clear upfront. As we would only ever be able to utilize the satellite for a small proportion of its orbits sharing will always be put forward be the bean counters. If this happens then nothing will get off the ground. It take someone to take the plunge and put the initial constellation in orbit, then as it grows others will join. Really looking at this it should be an EU project maybe Frontex, but as we know even in PESCO national interests take precedence. So maybe it could be something for us together with the Finns and the Poles to start.

Their is a growing trend of industry taking the initiative and offering solutions such as the Dark Vessel Programme. It mentions in a description that ICEYE will provide info every few hours.. I think the current Europe, Mediterranean, Atlantic coverage of AIS seems OK. In Military terms getting target information occasionally isn't sufficient. We must equip ships with their own acquisition, classification, and target engagement systems. Industry with ECDIS have created a new series of problems and a large training gap to be adequately filled. As regards turning off AIS, the system could be designed to always show the ship symbol as in CODE Charlie for aircraft.

ancientmariner
21st January 2020, 09:41
Their is a growing trend of industry taking the initiative and offering solutions such as the Dark Vessel Programme. It mentions in a description that ICEYE will provide info every few hours.. I think the current Europe, Mediterranean, Atlantic coverage of AIS seems OK. In Military terms getting target information occasionally isn't sufficient. We must equip ships with their own acquisition, classification, and target engagement systems. Industry with ECDIS have created a new series of problems and a large training gap to be adequately filled. As regards turning off AIS, the system could be designed to always show the ship symbol as in CODE Charlie for aircraft.

Delete first word "Their" and replace with " There ". By the way does anybody know what exactly is being done with the Roisin. The Mandays working on her are eyewatering . It is more a half life rebuild??

na grohmiti
21st January 2020, 10:38
Were all the initial problems she had post launch rectified? I.understand there were numerous changes made to Niamh, to rectify issues encountered with Roisin. That said, on either vessel it is almost impossible to remain on the bridge wing in certain winds while in motion. The wind noise is too uncomfortable. Simple aerodynamics I think. The box shaped funnel whacks the wind horribly.

DeV
21st January 2020, 12:21
https://www.thejournal.ie/le-roisin-upgrade-4972419-Jan2020/?utm_source=facebook_short

Sparky42
21st January 2020, 14:12
Some of the comments are head bangingly stupid.

L.T.Smash!
21st January 2020, 15:33
Some of the comments are head bangingly stupid.

Par for the course on The Journal (and every other news site).Its mind numbing when people get animated over 250k which really is such a small amount of money in government terms (it'll only get you a quarter of a printer after all). And its the same format every time,

"We need more money spent on health/welfare/houses/etc....., sure what do the army/navy/air corps do anyway? Lets disband/downsize/privatise :eek: or get the guards to do it",

Surely we have to be one of the only countries in the world where this argument persists regarding defence?

na grohmiti
21st January 2020, 15:44
It is the Journal.

ancientmariner
21st January 2020, 20:14
It is the Journal.

If you need to get at the hull , pipework, and electrics then it is inevitable that cabins, bulkheads, hull lining and insulation will all have to be ripped out , and replaced in a fit out with all new materials and fittings. Virtually a new ship. All of that is consequent on hull areas having to be strengthened or cut out and replaced. When all is done I hope they carry out an Initial Stability Test to see if her start point for Stability is " as built " in the UK.

na grohmiti
21st January 2020, 21:46
If you need to get at the hull , pipework, and electrics then it is inevitable that cabins, bulkheads, hull lining and insulation will all have to be ripped out , and replaced in a fit out with all new materials and fittings. Virtually a new ship. All of that is consequent on hull areas having to be strengthened or cut out and replaced. When all is done I hope they carry out an Initial Stability Test to see if her start point for Stability is " as built " in the UK.

I was aboard Eithne during one of her refits. Quite intimidating to see the majority of internal spaces back to the bare metal. They also took the opportunity to abrasive blast her superstructure, and in doing so, (removing 30 years worth of paint) probably got her sitting a few marks higher in the water.
Since Construction P51 has gained mounts for secondary armament quite high above the CG. For such a squat profile it was an interesting decision.

Laners
23rd January 2020, 10:26
https://www.thejournal.ie/le-roisin-upgrade-4972419-Jan2020/?utm_source=facebook_short
Love the line in the article " gymnasium and private accommodation "

hptmurphy
23rd January 2020, 22:16
Love the line in the article " gymnasium and private accommodation "

In our day read POs rec and sleeping in the emergency steering flat during harbour stations... not an impossible feat..:n:)

hptmurphy
23rd January 2020, 22:19
I know when Deirdre was stripped of all her paint , after her equipment was removed during her mid life refit in 87 it was reckoned she had risen about five inches in the water.

ancientmariner
24th January 2020, 11:24
I know when Deirdre was stripped of all her paint , after her equipment was removed during her mid life refit in 87 it was reckoned she had risen about five inches in the water.

Certainly when a ship is stripped and cleaned of weed and shell , she will be a little lighter in the water, and will be faster due to reduced friction ( clean hull ).
The overall reason is mathematics based on waterplane area (WPA) and Tonnes per centimetre (TPC) loaded on or off in Salt Water or Freshwater. If for example the TPC for a P61 is 7.5 tonnes and she decreased her draft by 12.5cm (5 inches+/-), she would have shed 93.75 tonnes. Our ships carry only a few hundred tonnes of usable weights and mostly make their own FW and have no unpredictable changes in draft, except as you point out after drydocking and paint job.

ancientmariner
16th February 2020, 22:45
Already happening/happened

Holy God.! We live in the steppes and know nothing of the sea. In the last day a ship that was abandoned off Bermuda in 2018 gets washed up on Ballyandreen Strand near Ballycotton. It is only 70/75 metres long and maybe 1000 tonner. It was spotted last year in the Southern area of the North Atlantic on a Latitude with Africa.
Why wasn't it tracked by international resources, was there positional data passed to our Government and CG. What were our MPA doing. What were the NS doing with it's Complete Maritime Awareness/Complete Maritime Domain to provide situational awareness to all that need to know. While the errant vessel " ALTA" was floating around, every vessel transiting the SW approaches was in danger. Somebody knew from day one that this vessel was derelict and drifting. Imagine a 4000 passenger vessel steaming into an unlit vessel in rough seas and buried within radar clutter, or a laden tanker from Whitegate doing the same. It is at times like this we must get real and become aware of our geographic position and the responsibilities it brings.

ancientmariner
17th February 2020, 09:24
Holy God.! We live in the steppes and know nothing of the sea. In the last day a ship that was abandoned off Bermuda in 2018 gets washed up on Ballyandreen Strand near Ballycotton. It is only 70/75 metres long and maybe 1000 tonner. It was spotted last year in the Southern area of the North Atlantic on a Latitude with Africa.
Why wasn't it tracked by international resources, was there positional data passed to our Government and CG. What were our MPA doing. What were the NS doing with it's Complete Maritime Awareness/Complete Maritime Domain to provide situational awareness to all that need to know. While the errant vessel " ALTA" was floating around, every vessel transiting the SW approaches was in danger. Somebody knew from day one that this vessel was derelict and drifting. Imagine a 4000 passenger vessel steaming into an unlit vessel in rough seas and buried within radar clutter, or a laden tanker from Whitegate doing the same. It is at times like this we must get real and become aware of our geographic position and the responsibilities it brings.

Studying Marine Traffic services it seems this strange, short range, vehicle carrier, was centred mostly around the Greek islands, although in an alter ego she did enter Weymouth Harbour. She was built in 1976 and under Greek ownership was named AVANTIS 11, she then was Named AVANTIS1, and then ALTA. In 2019 HMS Protector came across her , when the RN vessel was on passage to Antartica, but noted no sign of life and continued on. Due to ALTA's construction she could only be boarded by Helo. We are now stuck with her and we should not have been caught unawares. Get a map of known derelicts and keep it updated.

na grohmiti
17th February 2020, 09:28
As discussed on another thread, it is in a particularly inaccessible spot, and may become the next Ranga or Samson. Cork coco are monitoring the situation for oil pollution.

ancientmariner
17th February 2020, 10:09
As discussed on another thread, it is in a particularly inaccessible spot, and may become the next Ranga or Samson. Cork coco are monitoring the situation for oil pollution.

Technically the vessel belongs to the Receiver of wrecks of this country. They should take advice of the Agency that paid out on her dereliction and then see to her rermoval. If, after 18 months she still has Oils on board, then that has to be pumped out subject to survey of professionals. The question to be answered is why do we not have a visual or monitored VTS or do we just depend on HIM to see nothing bad happens.

ancientmariner
17th February 2020, 10:32
Technically the vessel belongs to the Receiver of wrecks of this country. They should take advice of the Agency that paid out on her dereliction and then see to her rermoval. If, after 18 months she still has Oils on board, then that has to be pumped out subject to survey of professionals. The question to be answered is why do we not have a visual or monitored VTS or do we just depend on HIM to see nothing bad happens.

As regards surveillance, in days of yore, the Roches point Lighthouse station had a monitoring radar and plot room to monitor the position of the CORK Buoy south of Cork harbour. Since the Lights were de-manned in 1992/1996 there is now no monitoring or radar. The pilot station is in the town with inner harbour views and some entrance views but no radar surveillance of the outer pilotage. Our control and monitoring of coastal regions is largely conceptual and reactive to specific circumstances. To be honest we need coastal radar coverage as in most of EU. The reason I bring this circumstance up is I may have seen this vessel south of Cork harbour from White Bay car park on Friday 14th February she was about 3 miles offshore. I thought she was a departure as her stern was towards me.

EUFighter
17th February 2020, 12:52
Here is a bit of detail from Marine Traffic:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:3589107/mmsi:374059000/imo:7432305/vessel:ALTA

Although given her age and when she was abandoned it is amazing that she did not founder before this. She must have weathered several hurricanes and numerous storms during the time she was drifting.

EUFighter
17th February 2020, 12:57
Holy God.! We live in the steppes and know nothing of the sea. In the last day a ship that was abandoned off Bermuda in 2018 gets washed up on Ballyandreen Strand near Ballycotton. It is only 70/75 metres long and maybe 1000 tonner. It was spotted last year in the Southern area of the North Atlantic on a Latitude with Africa.
Why wasn't it tracked by international resources, was there positional data passed to our Government and CG. What were our MPA doing. What were the NS doing with it's Complete Maritime Awareness/Complete Maritime Domain to provide situational awareness to all that need to know. While the errant vessel " ALTA" was floating around, every vessel transiting the SW approaches was in danger. Somebody knew from day one that this vessel was derelict and drifting. Imagine a 4000 passenger vessel steaming into an unlit vessel in rough seas and buried within radar clutter, or a laden tanker from Whitegate doing the same. It is at times like this we must get real and become aware of our geographic position and the responsibilities it brings.

First we should be annoyed with the RN, they spotted her a long time ago and knew she had been abandoned. But what is most annoying is that any would-be smuggler will see that they would most likely not get caught unless we have prior intel.

ancientmariner
17th February 2020, 14:32
First we should be annoyed with the RN, they spotted her a long time ago and knew she had been abandoned. But what is most annoying is that any would-be smuggler will see that they would most likely not get caught unless we have prior intel.

She was built in Norway by Tronderverftet of Hommelvik and registered in Bergen as TANAGER. She is a general cargo ship but designed to handle Palletised cargo. She has two hull doors with drive on/off facilities. She was then renamed POMOR MURMAN, later POLAR TRADER, later AVANTIS11, later AVANTIS1,later MAX MAMUTT, later ALTA, her current name. She is about 1600 tonnes and carried 128 tonnes of fuel. She could take 53 X 20ft TEU's and has a single upper hatch 19.1m X 8.8m. She is built with three decks. She is built to Norwegian Bureau standards.

Pegasus
17th February 2020, 16:27
Quick lick of grey paint and we can sell her off to the Libyan Private Navy.

golden rivet
17th February 2020, 20:29
rn could have put a few 20 mmm rounds into her at water line and it would now be a good home to marine life....

na grohmiti
17th February 2020, 20:41
Did they have something as large as that? Ice patrol ships are not always armed.

Auldsod
17th February 2020, 21:17
I don't think she had anything larger than 7.62. The USCG would have more likely had something with a bigger bang assuming it was a cutter than met her way out in the Atlantic. Surprised they didn't sink her as a hazard to navigation but I'm not expert on the legal aspects of all this admittidly.

Auldsod
17th February 2020, 21:22
On further reading, she was met by the below cutter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Confidence_(WMEC-619)

Seems they tried to get in contact the ship's owner to arrange a tug but nothing came of it. A hurricane was incoming so I'm guessing they bugged out.

hptmurphy
17th February 2020, 22:31
Did they have something as large as that? Ice patrol ships are not always armed.

2 X 7.62mm miniguns + 4 x GPMGs

Laners
18th February 2020, 08:08
2 X 7.62mm miniguns + 4 x GPMGs

Must be some bad ass polar bears out there .

CTU
18th February 2020, 08:43
Must be some bad ass polar bears out there .

Sod the Bears, it's the Penguins I'd be more worried about:n:)
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/batman/images/b/b8/Penguin_Commandos.jpg/revision/latest/top-crop/width/720/height/900?cb=20171126021333

On a serious note though, I believe the Antarctic Treaties limit Armed Forces to small arms only in Antarctica.

na grohmiti
18th February 2020, 09:37
I remember seeing on that documentary series about the arctic patrol vessel that subsequently sank, that the treaty had them removing all weapons from their mounts when operating south of a particular line on the globe.al other nations did the same, and the major warships in the region did not go south of this line at all.

ancientmariner
19th May 2020, 15:51
[QUOTE=ancientmariner;473103]As regards surveillance, Our control and monitoring of coastal regions is largely conceptual and reactive to specific circumstances. To be honest we need coastal radar coverage as in most of EU.

Just to outline how we became an accidental Navy. When the State first emerged there was a mixed bag of almost a couple of dozen mixed vessels taken over with ,Muirchu , Dainty, Fort Rannoch, and Shark being mentioned in dispatches. There were others who were keen to see a real Navy with aspirations towards a Light Cruiser, 4 destroyers, Coastal torpedo boats, Fleet Oilers, Tugs, and SUBMARINES. Suffice it to say we were best dressed with the rag tag range of vessels left behind by the RN.
We were looking for many MTB's and eventually acquired 6 to give us the skills of a coastal force with Torpedos and HMG's and the 12 Pdr on Muirchu. We continued forward to 1949 when we transferred our skills to manning the three Corvettes and becoming an ASW force with convoy defence capability. The torpedo trade was quickly expunged and Sonar, DC's, Hedgehog, AA, and 4" inch gun took over. In 1971/73 the corvettes were gone to be replaced by 3 CMS's and a change to an MCM Navy with emerging OPV's added on but the ASW trade was now expunged also. Eventually the MCM trade was then deleted as we added to the OPV Fleet and additionally ventured into Flight decks and Helicopters. However the aviation scene fell out of favour and traces of the ability were quickly compromised by other priorites. Then from the 1990's building program we added on 6 new OPV's to the retained HPV and 2 CPV's to give us 9 ships all with one gun and similar capabilities except for range. With every vessel type change we became a different Navy but every change brought the penalty of the loss of key operational capability. All those naval functions gained and lost need to be regained and maintained as in all Navies.

Sparky42
19th May 2020, 17:31
You seem to be leaving out the fact that the Treaty negoiations made it clear that the UK would not accept an Irish Navy for at least 25 years after the Treaty and even then were only willing to consider ships to deny U boats for the West Coast, in that 1927 conference when we floated the Cruiser/Destroyers the reply was only at most two squadrons of Minesweepers.

ancientmariner
19th May 2020, 21:11
You seem to be leaving out the fact that the Treaty negoiations made it clear that the UK would not accept an Irish Navy for at least 25 years after the Treaty and even then were only willing to consider ships to deny U boats for the West Coast, in that 1927 conference when we floated the Cruiser/Destroyers the reply was only at most two squadrons of Minesweepers.

Just pointing out that we have an accidental Navy that keeps changing operational profile every time we acquire new or replacement tonnage. The 1927 Conference was contentious on the Defended Ports issue but the Brits were offering "Imposing 800t 16kt minesweepers of the Irish County Class and would be quite suitable ceremonially and for your President's yacht" Like now, we had no money, and didn't take up the offer of the twin screw vessels. Those present were civil servants and Army Officers. We should have been asking the Brits for a couple of dozen training staff and officers to secund to Irish service and start MCM and ASW as proposed for the embryo service. Two Squadrons of the bigger vessels would have been a reasonable start.

na grohmiti
19th May 2020, 21:26
The Irish County Class, had we got them, were not a bad little ship to start out with. A shame the 1927 conference never amounted to anything in the end, but if it had, these ships would have had to fly the Red Duster, and that was a dealbreaker..
https://www.naval-history.net/PhotoWW1-22msSutton1PS.JPG
70m Long, beam of 8.7m. 4 inch QF up front, 12 pounder (3 inch) aft, Displ 721t.
Crew of 74, though where you put them I'm not sure. Range of 1500NM at 10kn. Max speed 16kn, coal fired boilers.
Most likely ships of this type already operated from Haulbowline.

In the end the RN that remained and who were supposed to patrol the southern approaches didn't bother.

EUFighter
19th May 2020, 21:56
Summary of the conference
https://www.difp.ie/docs/1927/Irish-Free-State-Coastal-Defence/797.htm

sofa
20th May 2020, 00:06
Question. Is there any constraint to this day on us because of the Treaty that limits our ambition to have a bigger /Better Navy, the details of which are kept from the people, and this explains the whole attatude of the types in charges of the DoD over the years.

Sparky42
20th May 2020, 00:17
Question. Is there any constraint to this day on us because of the Treaty that limits our ambition to have a bigger /Better Navy, the details of which are kept from the people, and this explains the whole attatude of the types in charges of the DoD over the years.

I doubt it, more it allowed for the creation of a political/public disinterest in naval matters, you can see that all the way back to the memos and accounts during the negotiations.

ancientmariner
20th May 2020, 09:54
Summary of the conference
https://www.difp.ie/docs/1927/Irish-Free-State-Coastal-Defence/797.htm

Even then the Brit side saw that we needed a naval mindset at such a conference. the leadership on our side had not yet attained a military/naval knowledge even though VIZE may have been a marine Engineer in UK prior to his Generalship. He was certainly with CLAN LINE and he survived being torpedoed off Algeria and went on to be purchasing officer for the republican side. An Analysis even from then shows a lack of deep planning and now an unrooted Naval ethic that needs to be finally nailed down and that will dictate the Fleet format. The Brits mentioned MCM, ASW, Fleet support and I would add AA Defence. We must stop being a quick change artist to steady the ship and the training requirements ashore. We probably also need a second base for MCM on the East Coast.

EUFighter
20th May 2020, 10:58
Even then the Brit side saw that we needed a naval mindset at such a conference. the leadership on our side had not yet attained a military/naval knowledge even though VIZE may have been a marine Engineer in UK prior to his Generalship. He was certainly with CLAN LINE and he survived being torpedoed off Algeria and went on to be purchasing officer for the republican side. An Analysis even from then shows a lack of deep planning and now an unrooted Naval ethic that needs to be finally nailed down and that will dictate the Fleet format. The Brits mentioned MCM, ASW, Fleet support and I would add AA Defence. We must stop being a quick change artist to steady the ship and the training requirements ashore. We probably also need a second base for MCM on the East Coast.

Just how old are you????
https://www.difp.ie/docs/Volume3/1926/740.htm
"if we want to preserve our neutrality against all comers, the existence of a well balanced naval and military force will make this more feasible, while, if we have confined ourselves entirely to land and coast defence, any fleet can closely blockade our shores with impunity."

ancientmariner
20th May 2020, 14:29
Just how old are you????
https://www.difp.ie/docs/Volume3/1926/740.htm
"if we want to preserve our neutrality against all comers, the existence of a well balanced naval and military force will make this more feasible, while, if we have confined ourselves entirely to land and coast defence, any fleet can closely blockade our shores with impunity."

At that time an aspiration without the requirement of training , billlets, and plenty of quay wall space. The only bit we did was post war with the corvettes in 1949 onwards. We mostly had ONE corvette at sea with a two year lay-up for each.

ancientmariner
20th May 2020, 22:48
At that time an aspiration without the requirement of training , billlets, and plenty of quay wall space. The only bit we did was post war with the corvettes in 1949 onwards. We mostly had ONE corvette at sea with a two year lay-up for each.

Just to clarify my point. The Military/ Naval conversation at the time was ideological and was big on ranges of ships we might operate, without grasping the foundations required to produce a professionally competent navy and set out locations and bases for ships. Until the 6 MTB's arrived there were no vessels constructed as Naval vessels in service. Then in 1949 the 3 Corvettes arrived and all were based at Haulbowline with fuel tanks, Dockyard , Stores, School, and an unused working Drydock.
In the early 1970's the Navy ran down to zero ships and an interim group of CMS's and a Danish trawler filled the gap until Deirdre plus 4 other ships were built at VCD Cork. In the 1980's, maybe 86/87 the two Peacocks were added. The consequence of all the latter ships was that all of the professional trades within the Service were lost such as ASW and MCM . Additionally the short lived aviation facility was strangled at birth. Naval skills should be endemic and ships acquired should implement the duties to maintain those skills.

na grohmiti
21st May 2020, 00:19
Do you think that naval aviation failed because of aircraft availability or a reluctance of air corps to take the aircraft to sea? Would, in hindsight, the lynx have been a better naval heli, given it is still in widespread use (in modified form) almost 30 years on?
One of the main naval architects involved in the design of P31 greatly regretted not extending the flight deck all the way aft.
Hopefully the lessons of the past will be considered in the design of the replacement vessel, if it happens.

ancientmariner
21st May 2020, 10:13
Do you think that naval aviation failed because of aircraft availability or a reluctance of air corps to take the aircraft to sea? Would, in hindsight, the lynx have been a better naval heli, given it is still in widespread use (in modified form) almost 30 years on?
One of the main naval architects involved in the design of P31 greatly regretted not extending the flight deck all the way aft.
Hopefully the lessons of the past will be considered in the design of the replacement vessel, if it happens.

There was a leadership positivity throughout to start Naval Aviation and initially it was a go. However an uncertainty developed when the aviation components were attached to the ship for longer periods. One such period the aircraft was confined to the shed, the pilots left, and the maintenance element remained on daily rate subsistence until the Helo was flown off in the Irish Sea. Gone never to be seen.
The Lynx was deemed unsuitable as it wasn't believed to be as sea worthy or capable of International flight as the Dauphin. I really don't know but the choice , approved by the French, was theirs. The Flight deck was passed by all agencies, it could have been extended, but would have made Flight deck escape, and a Helo landing facing aft, more difficult. NO helicopter had difficulty landing and additionally a Gazelle came and joined us for lunch.
Fleet operations and on scene emergencies are enhanced by having Flight decks for routine ship business and refuge if an own ship cannot take it's helo on board.

EUFighter
21st May 2020, 16:40
Do you think that naval aviation failed because of aircraft availability or a reluctance of air corps to take the aircraft to sea? Would, in hindsight, the lynx have been a better naval heli, given it is still in widespread use (in modified form) almost 30 years on?

IMHO I do not think it would have made much difference Lynx or Dauphin, as aircraft they are evenly matched. Also anyone I know who has worked on Westland products has had nothing but horror stories. The SA365/HH65/AS565 is still in service and production today. The four that we had are still doing great service in Chile, the French and many other navies continue to use them today with many upgrades. In fact most European operators of the Lynx have or are replacing them with much larger SH60/NH90 aircraft, only the RN in Europe has gone for an upgraded Lynx. The latter more from national pride than anything else.

I seem to remember many moons ago AM proposing/suggesting that if Naval aviation to succeed it needs to be part of the NS. That might be a bit too far given the size of the force but a dedicated Naval Aviation does have its merits. But it also has drawbacks especially for those that want a career. Then again if naval aviation was a separate Wing with its own "esprit de corps" as the elite flyers then those pilots who want to fly would be attracted. "Any good pilot can land on a fixed helipad at night but putting a helicopter onto a pitching ship at night in a storm, that is a naval aviator".

na grohmiti
21st May 2020, 17:49
At the time the UK, France and the BENELUX navies were all using naval lynx, as were the Scandanavians, which were a joint project by Westland and Sud Aviation, The same SA who had provided us with the Alouette and Gazelle, before becoming Aerospatiale.
There was a wealth of expertise on our doorstep in operating the type at sea from small ships decks. As ancientmariner said earlier, once the Dauphin was selected, the dutch, with whom we had a long standing working relationship in ship design (NEVESBU) were unable to offer any further assistance, and we were left to work with just the french, who had only just cleared the Dauphin for naval operations as ours were being delivered.
Initial images of the design showed a Lynx on deck, and from memory the Dockyard model in NMCI has a Lynx on deck.
The Dauphin was a new aircraft, not just the navalised version, the whole aircraft was new. France had withdrawn from the Lynx project and designed the Dauphin for their own needs, but they only withdrew the Naval Lynx in 2012.
It was like VHS or Betamax. We went with Betamax. Nothing wrong with it, and audio and video engineers love the quality of the Beta, but every home had a VHS.

EUFighter
21st May 2020, 17:59
At the time the UK, France and the BENELUX navies were all using naval lynx, as were the Scandanavians, which were a joint project by Westland and Sud Aviation, The same SA who had provided us with the Alouette and Gazelle, before becoming Aerospatiale.
There was a wealth of expertise on our doorstep in operating the type at sea from small ships decks. As ancientmariner said earlier, once the Dauphin was selected, the dutch, with whom we had a long standing working relationship in ship design (NEVESBU) were unable to offer any further assistance, and we were left to work with just the french, who had only just cleared the Dauphin for naval operations as ours were being delivered.
Initial images of the design showed a Lynx on deck, and from memory the Dockyard model in NMCI has a Lynx on deck.
The Dauphin was a new aircraft, not just the navalised version, the whole aircraft was new. France had withdrawn from the Lynx project and designed the Dauphin for their own needs, but they only withdrew the Naval Lynx in 2012.
It was like VHS or Betamax. We went with Betamax. Nothing wrong with it, and audio and video engineers love the quality of the Beta, but every home had a VHS.

If my memory serves me correctly, you posted an early design of the Eithne with a Lynx.
True in the early '80's the Lynx was the aircraft of choice, but I still think even if we got it there would have been the same issues with the AC willingness to go to sea.

ancientmariner
21st May 2020, 19:50
At the time the UK, France and the BENELUX navies were all using naval lynx, as were the Scandanavians, which were a joint project by Westland and Sud Aviation, The same SA who had provided us with the Alouette and Gazelle, before becoming Aerospatiale.
There was a wealth of expertise on our doorstep in operating the type at sea from small ships decks. As ancientmariner said earlier, once the Dauphin was selected, the dutch, with whom we had a long standing working relationship in ship design (NEVESBU) were unable to offer any further assistance, and we were left to work with just the french, who had only just cleared the Dauphin for naval operations as ours were being delivered.
Initial images of the design showed a Lynx on deck, and from memory the Dockyard model in NMCI has a Lynx on deck.
The Dauphin was a new aircraft, not just the navalised version, the whole aircraft was new. France had withdrawn from the Lynx project and designed the Dauphin for their own needs, but they only withdrew the Naval Lynx in 2012.
It was like VHS or Betamax. We went with Betamax. Nothing wrong with it, and audio and video engineers love the quality of the Beta, but every home had a VHS.

I,m not sure I said that as Nevesbu had a staff and a full time technical manager at VCD who was responsible for integrating the operations package including all comms and radar systems including ECM/ESM matters in relation to the Helicopter. Everybody remained in situ until the Government decision closed the Yard. The LYNX problem, as AC saw it, was the single Gem 42 engine which was an engine short of the TWO they required. They theorised that all Helicopters flying over ocean areas from ships or otherwise, as in Airsea rescue, MUST have TWO engines. The full package was their choice including, cabins, briefing room, workshops, X/Y cranes etc. etc. etc. to HOSTAC-1.

na grohmiti
21st May 2020, 20:22
France just recently stopped using the Alouette III as an SAR aircraft working from their Aircraft carrier.

EUFighter
21st May 2020, 21:25
I,m not sure I said that as Nevesbu had a staff and a full time technical manager at VCD who was responsible for integrating the operations package including all comms and radar systems including ECM/ESM matters in relation to the Helicopter. Everybody remained in situ until the Government decision closed the Yard. The LYNX problem, as AC saw it, was the single Gem 42 engine which was an engine short of the TWO they required. They theorised that all Helicopters flying over ocean areas from ships or otherwise, as in Airsea rescue, MUST have TWO engines. The full package was their choice including, cabins, briefing room, workshops, X/Y cranes etc. etc. etc. to HOSTAC-1.

Sure the AC were not looking at the Westland Wasp, as the Lynx is and always was a twin engine helicopter.

ancientmariner
21st May 2020, 22:44
Sure the AC were not looking at the Westland Wasp, as the Lynx is and always was a twin engine helicopter.

Certainly an error of recall on my part for which I apologise and must do better!!. The Lynx for some reason was discarded by AC and the points made for the Dauphin were twin engines, full international flight, retractable under carriage . The Lynx was not popular with AC for some singular reason.

CTU
21st May 2020, 22:53
Certainly an error of recall on my part for which I apologise and must do better!!. The Lynx for some reason was discarded by AC and the points made for the Dauphin were twin engines, full international flight, retractable under carriage . The Lynx was not popular with AC for some singular reason.

It has been mentioned a number of times on the board over the years that the Air Corps wanted the Puma for Army Support/SAR and the Lynx was favored for Naval Support but the DoD compromised and selected one helicopter type (Dauphin) for both missions. Is that true or just an urban legend?

EUFighter
22nd May 2020, 06:38
We need not forget that both the Lynx and Puma were very common sights just north of the border. So maybe the chance of one of the "old boys" taking a potshot at an AC Lynx or AC Puma was considered too high?

CTU
22nd May 2020, 08:26
We need not forget that both the Lynx and Puma were very common sights just north of the border. So maybe the chance of one of the "old boys" taking a potshot at an AC Lynx or AC Puma was considered too high?

The Gazelle was also a common sight In the north as well, but that didn't stop the Air Corps from operating 2 of them.

EUFighter
22nd May 2020, 09:07
The Gazelle was also a common sight In the north as well, but that didn't stop the Air Corps from operating 2 of them.

AFIK we did not do troop movements near the border with the Gazelle but if we had got some Puma's or Lynx's they would have been used for that.
I was just thinking, poor visibility, an AC Puma/Lynx landing near the border with troops jumping out, might that not have been mistaken for a RAF machine?

ancientmariner
22nd May 2020, 09:30
It has been mentioned a number of times on the board over the years that the Air Corps wanted the Puma for Army Support/SAR and the Lynx was favored for Naval Support but the DoD compromised and selected one helicopter type (Dauphin) for both missions. Is that true or just an urban legend?

It was what it was in the early 1980's the Aer Corps selected the Dauphin and seemed to see it as the one for Naval Support and Search and Rescue. Five were bought and at least two were Fully fitted for Naval use with Harpoon and compatible landing gear. Later it was discarded mentally after Tramore for the opposite reasons of it's original selection- Not enough Range-Not enough lifting capacity- limited single engine performance-not able to find it's way home in low vis. All that when fitted to full instrument rules, international flight including flying to France and finding a home with another Service.

na grohmiti
22nd May 2020, 09:50
It was what it was in the early 1980's the Aer Corps selected the Dauphin and seemed to see it as the one for Naval Support and Search and Rescue. Five were bought and at least two were Fully fitted for Naval use with Harpoon and compatible landing gear. Later it was discarded mentally after Tramore for the opposite reasons of it's original selection- Not enough Range-Not enough lifting capacity- limited single engine performance-not able to find it's way home in low vis. All that when fitted to full instrument rules, international flight including flying to France and finding a home with another Service.

One of the issues identified by Dh248 accident report was that though the heli was fitted with avionics capable of an ILS approach to waterford by autopilot, which would have put the aircraft in a hover over the runway, this was not approved for use by the Air Corps themselves, and pilots were not trained in its use.
As for the risk of our aircraft being confused with british aircraft on the border Both the Puma we had during 1982 and all the Alouettes up there had a large tricolour (visible from space) painted on the side, and bottom.

EUFighter
22nd May 2020, 10:11
Given that the AW-139's will not last forever and will need replacing would the future H160M family be the aircraft to suit us?
The H160M being the aircraft that the Dauphin tried to be but didn't quiet make it. And would it be the aircraft that would allow us to return to naval aviation, first on the MRV and possibly later on the P50's replacements?

8785

na grohmiti
22nd May 2020, 12:07
We need to go bigger. Merlin/NH90/S92 size, though not necessarily those types (the NH90 is a particular disaster, hopefully the MTT will sort out all the teething problems with that design). Going forward though we need to determine the role a shipboard heli is expected to do. Aerial surveillance can just as easily be done by dedicated ship launched drones such as the schiebel Camcopter. If it is for carrying "ass and trash" or People and stores then bigger is better, the Dauphin size just isn't big enough. The concept of the Blue-Green/MRV/P31 replacement is to be available to deploy overseas with vehicles and troops, or act as a platform for disaster relief.
In either case the Dauphin variant would do the job, but only just. Better off with something that has a large cabin, flat internal floor and plenty of thrust for working in less than ideal weather conditions.

DeV
22nd May 2020, 12:24
Given that the AW-139's will not last forever and will need replacing would the future H160M family be the aircraft to suit us?
The H160M being the aircraft that the Dauphin tried to be but didn't quiet make it. And would it be the aircraft that would allow us to return to naval aviation, first on the MRV and possibly later on the P50's replacements?

8785

Except it carries less troops than an AW139 (5 versus 10)

Future from Airbus has to be bigger (they don’t offer anything similar sized).... from Airbus that means NH90 (20), H215M (24?) or H225M (28?)


Seats depend on if they are troop seats, crash-worthy seats, equipment etc

EUFighter
22nd May 2020, 12:50
Except it carries less troops than an AW139 (5 versus 10)

Future from Airbus has to be bigger (they don’t offer anything similar sized).... from Airbus that means NH90 (20), H215M (24?) or H225M (28?)


Seats depend on if they are troop seats, crash-worthy seats, equipment etc

Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.

EUFighter
22nd May 2020, 12:56
We need to go bigger. Merlin/NH90/S92 size, though not necessarily those types (the NH90 is a particular disaster, hopefully the MTT will sort out all the teething problems with that design). Going forward though we need to determine the role a shipboard heli is expected to do. Aerial surveillance can just as easily be done by dedicated ship launched drones such as the schiebel Camcopter. If it is for carrying "ass and trash" or People and stores then bigger is better, the Dauphin size just isn't big enough. The concept of the Blue-Green/MRV/P31 replacement is to be available to deploy overseas with vehicles and troops, or act as a platform for disaster relief.
In either case the Dauphin variant would do the job, but only just. Better off with something that has a large cabin, flat internal floor and plenty of thrust for working in less than ideal weather conditions.

Actually even if the NH90 is a larger aircraft, when stowed it has a smaller footprint than the H160M as it has a proper folding tail.
Seem to remember that the Spanish were also interested in the MITT version to replace their Sea Kings. The aft ramp does help in HADR getting goods in and people out quickly.

na grohmiti
22nd May 2020, 13:10
Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.

In passenger configuration, the AW139 also carries 12 passengers, plus crew. Three rows of seats 4 abreast. Not ideal for anyone other than someone with medium build, wearing shorts and T Shirt. (and having nothing in their pockets.)
It reminds me of this clip.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j8H39sPu_wA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DeV
22nd May 2020, 13:29
Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.

Except The AW139 (or replacement) it isn’t intended for that kind of config - it is for tactical transport with kit

ancientmariner
22nd May 2020, 14:52
Except The AW139 (or replacement) it isn’t intended for that kind of config - it is for tactical transport with kit

Getting back to things Navy, I see the Goma Two are still waiting for DOD decisions. We in the military should work on the How and with What that the job could be done. By this time they should have been re-positioned to a friendlier country. In fact any of our 90m vessels could have been positioned off Tanzania by now if action was taken at first instance. Pick them up in a Tanzanian port and bring them home or drop them off in Malta or Cyprus and have the AC collect them with the CASA.

Laners
22nd May 2020, 18:07
In passenger configuration, the AW139 also carries 12 passengers, plus crew. Three rows of seats 4 abreast. Not ideal for anyone other than someone with medium build, wearing shorts and T Shirt. (and having nothing in their pockets.)
It reminds me of this clip.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j8H39sPu_wA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Well leave the doors off and you could get a few more passengers in .

Rhodes
23rd May 2020, 23:20
Getting back to things Navy, I see the Goma Two are still waiting for DOD decisions. We in the military should work on the How and with What that the job could be done. By this time they should have been re-positioned to a friendlier country. In fact any of our 90m vessels could have been positioned off Tanzania by now if action was taken at first instance. Pick them up in a Tanzanian port and bring them home or drop them off in Malta or Cyprus and have the AC collect them with the CASA.

Or just use the Air Corps Learjet. It would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for the DoD bureaucrats.

ancientmariner
25th May 2020, 10:53
Or just use the Air Corps Learjet. It would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for the DoD bureaucrats.

For those interested it is 3000 nm to Port Said ( 8days transit from Cork) 1 day through the Suez, and another 7.5 days to Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania. Then back to Cyprus in 9 Days. If they left on the 1st May they would be in Cyprus today or early tomorrow 26th May and in Baldonnel the same day.

na grohmiti
25th May 2020, 12:09
Don't grey ships get priority transiting Suez also?

ancientmariner
25th May 2020, 13:05
Don't grey ships get priority transiting Suez also?

Often smaller faster ships would go through in their own Convoy.

ancientmariner
3rd June 2020, 10:55
Just pointing out that we have an accidental Navy that keeps changing operational profile every time we acquire new or replacement tonnage. The 1927 Conference was contentious on the Defended Ports issue but the Brits were offering "Imposing 800t 16kt minesweepers of the Irish County Class and would be quite suitable ceremonially and for your President's yacht" Like now, we had no money, and didn't take up the offer of the twin screw vessels. Those present were civil servants and Army Officers. We should have been asking the Brits for a couple of dozen training staff and officers to secund to Irish service and start MCM and ASW as proposed for the embryo service. Two Squadrons of the bigger vessels would have been a reasonable start.

Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.

DeV
3rd June 2020, 12:00
To be successful smaller militaries need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel.

Fixed that for you and due to the small size of the DF and personnel turnover in the last 12 years it has become a major issue across the DF

ancientmariner
3rd June 2020, 13:21
Fixed that for you and due to the small size of the DF and personnel turnover in the last 12 years it has become a major issue across the DF

Agree PDF as a whole has been deconstructed however, despite C&S course, and SSC, my concern lies with the area of my former expertise. It is time to stop closing capability avenues and closing down functions at the whim of simpler less expensive choices. Defence and deterrence has to be on equal footing to HADR capability as on occasion disasters can also be man made.

DeV
3rd June 2020, 14:14
Agree PDF as a whole has been deconstructed however, despite C&S course, and SSC, my concern lies with the area of my former expertise. It is time to stop closing capability avenues and closing down functions at the whim of simpler less expensive choices. Defence and deterrence has to be on equal footing to HADR capability as on occasion disasters can also be man made.

Not necessarily what I mean. We have very well qualified people who have a long training lead time. The major issues are they leave the DF too soon, they get moved around too much (rotation, overseas, promotion, course, college, etc etc). That then leads to burnout, work-life balance issues, double/triple jobbing, etc. It also leads to a critical loss of experience and mentoring.

For example, we have people who have to transfer corps (And/or Bde) to get promoted

ancientmariner
3rd June 2020, 16:41
Not necessarily what I mean. We have very well qualified people who have a long training lead time. The major issues are they leave the DF too soon, they get moved around too much (rotation, overseas, promotion, course, college, etc etc). That then leads to burnout, work-life balance issues, double/triple jobbing, etc. It also leads to a critical loss of experience and mentoring.

For example, we have people who have to transfer corps (And/or Bde) to get promoted

I agree that all of those perchance happen in a volunteer service. Mil organisations were always expert in calculating requirements for person and machine, and provision for reserves , stores, and replenishment as it arises. Failure to see the inevitable and not understanding the loss of expertise and self worth also create conditions for personnel to move on or out. Promotion can be troublesome especially at higher levels where SO's from any Branch can go from a desk job to a Brigadier or higher.
Mentoring is a huge part of Naval Service life especially in matters of Safety and how things work that are not available for hands on experience ashore.
When a ship sails , peace or war, she is pretty well equipped equally at full operational levels. Everybody from junior to highest levels must tune in to how things work and learn to use and maintain them. It is important then that the Mission tools remain static, and be modernised as required, so that capability remains constant, at least. Binning hardware every decade or so leads to what we have now.

ancientmariner
16th June 2020, 17:21
Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.

The current biggest treat to the development and integrity of the Irish Navy and the continued existence of the Maritime College of Ireland is the Cork Port Company and its unitary expansion plans in the smallest corner of Cork harbour. In their initial submission they included Haulbowline as an area of expansion, along with Marina point and Cork Dockyard. Even now the plan is right up to the boundary of the NMCI so that the work area will be next to classrooms. The Department responsible for Marine needs to take control and ensure equitable outcomes for sitting traditional tenants. The plans are minuscule when taken against international ship sizes, and constricted so, due to limited foreshore and accesses. Even a small modern port needs a kilometre of container berthage, more berthage for small coastal vessels, berthage for Cruise trade, berthage for official visiting ships of all types, and berths for recreational mariners. In the Far east quite modest countries have 2.5 miles of berthage. Between Cork and Waterford city we are scrapping that amount. Make Ireland Small again!!

na grohmiti
16th June 2020, 17:28
NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.

Sparky42
16th June 2020, 17:52
NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.

Given the figures I heard regard drop out rates for commercial cadets during placement over the last year or so maybe being next to a working port might be a bonus rather than a bad thing.

DeV
16th June 2020, 18:23
Given the figures I heard regard drop out rates for commercial cadets during placement over the last year or so maybe being next to a working port might be a bonus rather than a bad thing.

Any chance of bigger NS cadet classes to improve that situation?

Sparky42
16th June 2020, 18:37
Any chance of bigger NS cadet classes to improve that situation?

Think at least 1 did move over, most I heard about dropped out of the area altogether.

ancientmariner
16th June 2020, 20:05
NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.

If you look at Cork Port Review leading to the piecemeal development at Ringaskiddy it is clear that the ball has been dropped. They are moving from City quays 1.276 k to a nascent berthage of about .485k with planned building work in hand and yet to be started. The current berthage was to manage 3 ships of 2000teu alongside. That is laughable as medium Ships have 5000 teu while larger vessels of post-Panamax and New-Panamax are up to 10,000teu's and beyond. The intention to increase berthage on the current berth footprint is in filling Ringaskiddy bay and moving traffic closer to Haulbowline Island and the College.

The planned positions for increased berthage are Oyster Bank, beside Maritime College and Naval base, and Curlane Bank South of Spike Island that may include a bridge link to Spike from the Haulbowline access road with years of infill and construction and of course a busy Amenity area. They should have developed the East side of the Harbour with ready access to deep water and a bare fore shore.

na grohmiti
16th June 2020, 22:07
I'm not sure where you are getting the Oyster bank and Curlane bank plans from, but these were alternative options given to Ringaskiddy redevelopment. They were ruled out on a number of engineering and environmental grounds. The East of the harbour suffers from a glut of underwater cables and outflows, as well as a very poor road infastructure. The R630 is already in bits from the volume of traffic just to the refinery (60 trucks an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year on average). The decommissioning of the older Aghada generating station will see the site used for Battery storage to support the grid coming from the newer Aghada station, the BGE power station next door to the Refinery, and the Wind turbines in Crocane.
No matter what infastructure you provide for Container ships, you'll not see anything near 10000 TEU in Cork. We don't have the demand for ships of that size, while we continue to serve large feeder container ships to other Irish Ports.

ancientmariner
16th June 2020, 23:21
I'm not sure where you are getting the Oyster bank and Curlane bank plans from, but these were alternative options given to Ringaskiddy redevelopment. They were ruled out on a number of engineering and environmental grounds. The East of the harbour suffers from a glut of underwater cables and outflows, as well as a very poor road infastructure. The R630 is already in bits from the volume of traffic just to the refinery (60 trucks an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year on average). The decommissioning of the older Aghada generating station will see the site used for Battery storage to support the grid coming from the newer Aghada station, the BGE power station next door to the Refinery, and the Wind turbines in Crocane.
No matter what infastructure you provide for Container ships, you'll not see anything near 10000 TEU in Cork. We don't have the demand for ships of that size, while we continue to serve large feeder container ships to other Irish Ports.

Oyster Bank area is NOT ruled out as the east-west leg of a container dog-legged berth will reside on part of it, and it is shown abutting NMCI grounds. I don't want to get into power stations as Electric Ireland have committed to importing all the replacement power caused by current and future closures. Shannon and wind will be it and the rest comes through connectors old and new to come on line. Any trouble in UK and Europe we will be goosed.

ancientmariner
20th June 2020, 15:23
Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.

As a former user, I would suggest we use the P31 for training Naval Reserves. Our neighbour is using two ships for alongside training. Find a secure Berth around Fords Wharf or the Harbour Commissioners wharf and man the ship with a cadre with sufficient knowledge to run her systems, maintain the Cork Company's administration, and train the enlisted volunteers in all shipboard equipments and protocols appropriate to their Branches. They should maintain the ship and learn over time to be experienced enough to be assigned to seagoing ships as useful ships crew. They could shift the Cork Unit HQ from Collins Barracks to the ship. In ordinary circumstances she would need to be on shore power and have access to services such as FW, waste disposal, and fuel . She is a self made academy covering all Branches.

na grohmiti
20th June 2020, 15:50
As a former user, I would suggest we use the P31 for training Naval Reserves. Our neighbour is using two ships for alongside training. Find a secure Berth around Fords Wharf or the Harbour Commissioners wharf and man the ship with a cadre with sufficient knowledge to run her systems, maintain the Cork Company's administration, and train the enlisted volunteers in all shipboard equipments and protocols appropriate to their Branches. They should maintain the ship and learn over time to be experienced enough to be assigned to seagoing ships as useful ships crew. They could shift the Cork Unit HQ from Collins Barracks to the ship. In ordinary circumstances she would need to be on shore power and have access to services such as FW, waste disposal, and fuel . She is a self made academy covering all Branches.

Her current location is a pretty secure berth. The Cork NSR unit is based in Haulbowline.

ancientmariner
22nd June 2020, 18:10
Her current location is a pretty secure berth. The Cork NSR unit is based in Haulbowline.

In that case the ship would need to be at the base as she needs to be secure enough to leave her short manned or even unmanned overnight, unless NSR watches are running. An Open berth in Cork would be too vulnerable and raise potential security problems.

na grohmiti
22nd June 2020, 19:32
In that case the ship would need to be at the base as she needs to be secure enough to leave her short manned or even unmanned overnight, unless NSR watches are running. An Open berth in Cork would be too vulnerable and raise potential security problems.

Then you are dealing with a ISPS Code situation. While the rules may not apply to Naval vessels, they do apply to the quayside. If you are going to a permanent berth, then it is easy to secure access. Every marina in the country can manage it, all you need is a Gate at the end of the gangway. Custom House Quay (north) is ideal in this regard, but the imminent redevelopment may change this. When Tivoli is downgraded from a working container port, it's quays are also easily secured, as the gates are already there. The Old Terminal is ideal for shore accommodation.
Ideally, you need a dedicated naval berth which, when required, can also accommodate visiting naval vessels, and give them the security they desire and deserve. While the Cruiseliner berth can handle the larger ships safely, it would be nice to see the smaller European and Non European ships back up the quays again. Not seen anything interesting since HMAS ANZAC about 12 years ago.
Tivoli Could do all this.

ancientmariner
23rd June 2020, 10:31
Then you are dealing with a ISPS Code situation. While the rules may not apply to Naval vessels, they do apply to the quayside. If you are going to a permanent berth, then it is easy to secure access. Every marina in the country can manage it, all you need is a Gate at the end of the gangway. Custom House Quay (north) is ideal in this regard, but the imminent redevelopment may change this. When Tivoli is downgraded from a working container port, it's quays are also easily secured, as the gates are already there. The Old Terminal is ideal for shore accommodation.
Ideally, you need a dedicated naval berth which, when required, can also accommodate visiting naval vessels, and give them the security they desire and deserve. While the Cruiseliner berth can handle the larger ships safely, it would be nice to see the smaller European and Non European ships back up the quays again. Not seen anything interesting since HMAS ANZAC about 12 years ago.
Tivoli Could do all this.

The ISPS Code was born from the Twin Towers incident in New York and transferred, due impending risk of a similar nature, up to nuclear, to shipping entering port. Security is paramount for ships in open ports. What we would need is a secure Naval only berth that is lockable and/or guardable. The Cork HA are talking about using Tivoli for small coasters when the container cranes are removed. However if the NSR are Haulbowline based then that unit can use an adapted berth there and use any alongside ship assigned to training. It leaves Waterford, Dublin, and Limerick to be sited under similar security for their training craft only.

ancientmariner
31st July 2020, 13:22
Oyster Bank area is NOT ruled out as the east-west leg of a container dog-legged berth will reside on part of it, and it is shown abutting NMCI grounds. I don't want to get into power stations as Electric Ireland have committed to importing all the replacement power caused by current and future closures. Shannon and wind will be it and the rest comes through connectors old and new to come on line. Any trouble in UK and Europe we will be goosed.

In today's Irish Examiner there is released information from the Minister of Housing,Planning Ports, and Local Government about a Master Plan for the Marine Area. The document sets out sectoral objectives and planning policies covering 16 sectors/activities. Among fish, sport, and energy is Defence and SECURITY, and also Ports, Harbours and Shipping. Where are Dept. of Defence and Dept. of Marine? With such conflicts of responsibility I can safely say we will be planned into a corner.

ancientmariner
1st August 2020, 10:06
In today's Irish Examiner there is released information from the Minister of Housing,Planning Ports, and Local Government about a Master Plan for the Marine Area. The document sets out sectoral objectives and planning policies covering 16 sectors/activities. Among fish, sport, and energy is Defence and SECURITY, and also Ports, Harbours and Shipping. Where are Dept. of Defence and Dept. of Marine? With such conflicts of responsibility I can safely say we will be planned into a corner.

Sorry a word reverse jump in the first line--after word Planning delete " Ports".

EUFighter
1st August 2020, 15:31
In today's Irish Examiner there is released information from the Minister of Housing,Planning Ports, and Local Government about a Master Plan for the Marine Area. The document sets out sectoral objectives and planning policies covering 16 sectors/activities. Among fish, sport, and energy is Defence and SECURITY, and also Ports, Harbours and Shipping. Where are Dept. of Defence and Dept. of Marine? With such conflicts of responsibility I can safely say we will be planned into a corner.

Do you mean this article;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sponsored/arid-40021070.html

It is a small step in the right direction, I do not really care in which department is is as long as it gets done properly. And we have to be happy that "defence and security" have been included.

Graylion
1st August 2020, 19:59
Do you mean this article;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sponsored/arid-40021070.html

It is a small step in the right direction, I do not really care in which department is is as long as it gets done properly. And we have to be happy that "defence and security" have been included.

What I am finding interesting is this from the draft paper

"6.12 Haulbowline Naval Base is of strategic importance to the Naval Service and Ireland given its geographic location. In line with the ongoing investment programme in new ships, there will be a need for future expansion of the Naval Base with the requirement for additional berthage and the development of a dry-dock. Future development in Cork Harbour will need to take cognisance of the unique requirements of the Naval Service."

edit, here is the draft paper: https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/public-consultation/files/draft_national_marine_planning_framework_final.pdf

ancientmariner
1st August 2020, 20:11
What I am finding interesting is this from the draft paper

"6.12 Haulbowline Naval Base is of strategic importance to the Naval Service and Ireland given its geographic location. In line with the ongoing investment programme in new ships, there will be a need for future expansion of the Naval Base with the requirement for additional berthage and the development of a dry-dock. Future development in Cork Harbour will need to take cognisance of the unique requirements of the Naval Service."

This is an eureka moment. Delighted with that statement but am always sceptical when aspirations and budgets do not coincide, unless increased berthage and drydock is going to be funded from Dept of Building , Planning and Environment. In another piece in today's Irish Examiner Captain Mc Carthy, Chairman of Cruise Europe, is negative about proposed river Crossing in Cork that will isolate upper Quays and shut out all traffic including visiting Naval vessels.

na grohmiti
1st August 2020, 21:01
(a) No crossing is needed there, the residents want to walk there, they want less vehicles.
(b) There was supposed to be a swing bridge. You must keep the city quays open to all vessels. Otherwise just fill in the river with concrete and be done with it.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40025285.html

DeV
2nd August 2020, 08:02
This is an eureka moment. Delighted with that statement but am always sceptical when aspirations and budgets do not coincide, unless increased berthage and drydock is going to be funded from Dept of Building , Planning and Environment. In another piece in today's Irish Examiner Captain Mc Carthy, Chairman of Cruise Europe, is negative about proposed river Crossing in Cork that will isolate upper Quays and shut out all traffic including visiting Naval vessels.

Work on additional berthage has already started. Drydock is new

na grohmiti
2nd August 2020, 11:39
Work on additional berthage has already started. Drydock is new

Where is the work on berthage happening? Are they restoring the Graving dock(a tight squeeze without cranes or engineering workshops nearby). I always believed purchase of a floating dock, locating at (and leasing to/from) the Cork Dockyard would be a wise move in the long term. Cork Dockyard continues to be used to assemble Dockside cranes, ironically having none itself. Proposed plans for floating offshore wind farms will require lots of space ashore for assembly, support and repair. If the NS purchased a Floating dock, and leased it to DSG, it would be paid for within 10 years.

EUFighter
2nd August 2020, 13:04
Where is the work on berthage happening? Are they restoring the Graving dock(a tight squeeze without cranes or engineering workshops nearby). I always believed purchase of a floating dock, locating at (and leasing to/from) the Cork Dockyard would be a wise move in the long term. Cork Dockyard continues to be used to assemble Dockside cranes, ironically having none itself. Proposed plans for floating offshore wind farms will require lots of space ashore for assembly, support and repair. If the NS purchased a Floating dock, and leased it to DSG, it would be paid for within 10 years.

We can't afford a "floating dock", only large countries with a long naval tradition like Cameroon can do that!!!!

https://www.defenceweb.co.za/sea/sea-sea/cameroon-navys-floating-dock-in-action/

DeV
2nd August 2020, 19:12
Where is the work on berthage happening? Are they restoring the Graving dock(a tight squeeze without cranes or engineering workshops nearby). I always believed purchase of a floating dock, locating at (and leasing to/from) the Cork Dockyard would be a wise move in the long term. Cork Dockyard continues to be used to assemble Dockside cranes, ironically having none itself. Proposed plans for floating offshore wind farms will require lots of space ashore for assembly, support and repair. If the NS purchased a Floating dock, and leased it to DSG, it would be paid for within 10 years.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/docmgmt/downloadPublicDocument.asp?FMT=5&AT=3&LID=125058&DVID=1219071

Doesn’t DSG not already have a floating dock? There was pics of one on their previous website.

Would require a multi annual tender for all the vessels. Not impossible but generally not done by DoD

na grohmiti
2nd August 2020, 20:02
https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/docmgmt/downloadPublicDocument.asp?FMT=5&AT=3&LID=125058&DVID=1219071

Doesn’t DSG not already have a floating dock? There was pics of one on their previous website.

Would require a multi annual tender for all the vessels. Not impossible but generally not done by DoD

It started sinking sometime round 2010, was scrapped soon after. Was in frequent use for maintenance of the CPVs but couldn't manage anything much bigger. There was a much larger one along side it for years.
http://www.afloat.ie/images/news_content_images/verolmedockard.jpg

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Last man standing at Verolme Dockyard today. 60 years old and the last crane to be removed from a historic local employer. <a href="https://twitter.com/PhotosCork?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PhotosCork</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/rtenews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rtenews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CorksRedFM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CorksRedFM</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RandomCorkStuff?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RandomCorkStuff</a> <a href="https://t.co/djmGuwHKXa">pic.twitter.com/djmGuwHKXa</a></p>&mdash; Aaron Woods (@woodsCOBH) <a href="https://twitter.com/woodsCOBH/status/979467500382576640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

ancientmariner
2nd August 2020, 21:06
https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/docmgmt/downloadPublicDocument.asp?FMT=5&AT=3&LID=125058&DVID=1219071

Doesn’t DSG not already have a floating dock? There was pics of one on their previous website.

Would require a multi annual tender for all the vessels. Not impossible but generally not done by DoD

The floating docks are gone many years. Reading the request for Tender to increase berthage at the naval base seems to have so many unquantifiable hindrances to commencement of work that not many Irish firms will be interested!! I would have thought the major thing would be to remove all of the unwanted silt by a dredging contractor at first and then follow with the engineering works. The dredging will be mostly suction and waterjet coupled with a magnetic means to remove steel jetsam. Using the graving dock for staggered berthage is a bad mistake as it is virtually destroying it as a potential drydock and when in use the outer ship will block the inner ship freedom of movement. Better make it a covered dock to work on ships afloat, one at a time.

na grohmiti
2nd August 2020, 21:10
The floating docks are gone many years. Reading the request for Tender to increase berthage at the naval base seems to have so many unquantifiable hindrances to commencement of work that not many Irish firms will be interested!! I would have thought the major thing would be to remove all of the unwanted silt by a dredging contractor at first and then follow with the engineering works. The dredging will be mostly suction and waterjet coupled with a magnetic means to remove steel jetsam. Using the graving dock for staggered berthage is a bad mistake as it is virtually destroying it as a potential drydock and when in use the outer ship will block the inner ship freedom of movement. Better make it a covered dock to work on ships afloat, one at a time.

Costings were done on this some years ago and it was not at all costly. Biggest problem is the Visual intrusion such a structure would bring, and the outrage from NIMBYs in Cob H.

Sparky42
2nd August 2020, 21:54
Costings were done on this some years ago and it was not at all costly. Biggest problem is the Visual intrusion such a structure would bring, and the outrage from NIMBYs in Cob H.

I thought the Basin had already had a full dredging only a couple of years ago to remove the slit and debris from Steel? As to the visual impact, feck me, we had steel itself for decades how could covering the the graving dock be any more than that?

na grohmiti
2nd August 2020, 23:37
Not sure how much of the graving dock was dredged. It would have had a large quantity of steel here as this was where finished product was loaded to go outbound.

DeV
3rd August 2020, 00:05
The floating docks are gone many years. Reading the request for Tender to increase berthage at the naval base seems to have so many unquantifiable hindrances to commencement of work that not many Irish firms will be interested!! I would have thought the major thing would be to remove all of the unwanted silt by a dredging contractor at first and then follow with the engineering works. The dredging will be mostly suction and waterjet coupled with a magnetic means to remove steel jetsam. Using the graving dock for staggered berthage is a bad mistake as it is virtually destroying it as a potential drydock and when in use the outer ship will block the inner ship freedom of movement. Better make it a covered dock to work on ships afloat, one at a time.

Could well be gone

Which is probably why it’s says it should be removed

In fairness in the basin there is only so many places to go

ancientmariner
3rd August 2020, 10:31
Could well be gone

Which is probably why it’s says it should be removed

In fairness in the basin there is only so many places to go

Just answering a question. Engineering wise not many companies are into specialised dredging. It would be better to have that done first and then figure solving an engineering problem of making provision for a 125/130 metre ship which may need to be 180'ed to get out of the basin. Rolling all the exigencies of updating the basin facilities into one contract may frighten most ,unless they receive letters of comfort and an open chequebook. Any Mariner would know what to do with the basin. Make it bigger and re-instate the drydock. While all this is going on, including loading dredged contaminants for processing means we may have to vacate the basin for some time, for after all, as you say there is only so many places to go in that basin.

EUFighter
3rd August 2020, 10:32
Why is the assumption that any new berthage is within the basis?
If the NS does ever get an EPV/MRV it could be much large than any current vessel.

na grohmiti
3rd August 2020, 11:42
Any plans I saw had new berthage outside the basin to the north where water is deep. The quay at the basin entrance was also in the plan as a short term berth.
At present at least one ship is using the Deepwater berth in Cobh on a regular basis.

ancientmariner
3rd August 2020, 14:05
Why is the assumption that any new berthage is within the basis?
If the NS does ever get an EPV/MRV it could be much large than any current vessel.

There is a Request for tender issued by the Department of Defence, to dredge basin West plus West wall area of silt( Contaminated ), to fit out west wall to berth 2 x 90 metre vessels to include shore power, water, lighting, access roads, and work areas, and to make staggered berthing for two ships in the Graving Dock. The tender also includes surveying the condition of Spenser Jetty. My own view is in an earlier comment. With all walls occupied by single berths, the central manoeuvring area will be about 140metres reducing towards the Basin entrance. Not enough for 130metre vessel.

na grohmiti
3rd August 2020, 15:04
I don't like the dismissal of the stonework in the graving dock. It served a purpose. The document also seems to be unaware of the function of a caisson and the usefulness it, and the pump house earmarked for demolition, could provide.

EUFighter
5th August 2020, 16:55
It started sinking sometime round 2010, was scrapped soon after. Was in frequent use for maintenance of the CPVs but couldn't manage anything much bigger. There was a much larger one along side it for years.
http://www.afloat.ie/images/news_content_images/verolmedockard.jpg

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Last man standing at Verolme Dockyard today. 60 years old and the last crane to be removed from a historic local employer. <a href="https://twitter.com/PhotosCork?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PhotosCork</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/rtenews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rtenews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CorksRedFM?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CorksRedFM</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RandomCorkStuff?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RandomCorkStuff</a> <a href="https://t.co/djmGuwHKXa">pic.twitter.com/djmGuwHKXa</a></p>— Aaron Woods (@woodsCOBH) <a href="https://twitter.com/woodsCOBH/status/979467500382576640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Given that a lot of our energy production will in the coming years be offshore it is a pity that the old facilities have gone. Even just the fabrication of the towers would be a decent amount of work.

na grohmiti
5th August 2020, 17:45
Well Leibherr are assembling cranes there at present. There is still plenty of space for fabrication, and plenty of mobile crane suppliers with impressive lift capabilities nearby so all is not lost, but modern fixed STS or Dockyard.cranes.make the whole business a bit safer.

ancientmariner
6th August 2020, 09:49
Well Leibherr are assembling cranes there at present. There is still plenty of space for fabrication, and plenty of mobile crane suppliers with impressive lift capabilities nearby so all is not lost, but modern fixed STS or Dockyard.cranes.make the whole business a bit safer.

The site is described as DSG CORK Terminal. My view is that it will be a cargo handling terminal and repair will become a diminishing part of the facility. Perhaps long term afloat repairs will disappear. However since a lot of ships are gearless, large cranes , mobile or otherwise will be essential for cargo handling. Trucking will also be needed over narrow winding roads.

na grohmiti
6th August 2020, 10:02
The site is described as DSG CORK Terminal. My view is that it will be a cargo handling terminal and repair will become a diminishing part of the facility. Perhaps long term afloat repairs will disappear. However since a lot of ships are gearless, large cranes , mobile or otherwise will be essential for cargo handling. Trucking will also be needed over narrow winding roads.

If they can get the 1500t mobile crane in, which has a travelling weight of 106t, they can get trucks in. It may also give some incentive to modernising and widening that stretch of road.
They did it on the Whitegate road when the refinery was built over 50 years ago.

EUFighter
6th August 2020, 10:07
The site is described as DSG CORK Terminal. My view is that it will be a cargo handling terminal and repair will become a diminishing part of the facility. Perhaps long term afloat repairs will disappear. However since a lot of ships are gearless, large cranes , mobile or otherwise will be essential for cargo handling. Trucking will also be needed over narrow winding roads.

Why go by road when you can go by water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCOwMmkP-94

If you need something smaller then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk

ancientmariner
6th August 2020, 10:34
Why go by road when you can go by water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCOwMmkP-94

If you need something smaller then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk

Ok. Ways to skin cats. No beaches at DSG yard. Just to note. I spent 2 years in total standing by building two ships at VCD. The offices and facilities were under the Building Slips and were adjacent and parallel to the graving dock. When a ship is docked, and dry, all ship's domestics shuts down except a single galley outlet for grey water. The crews used the wash and restrooms ashore. There seems to be no assignable facilities adjacent to the Dock now. The History of this sole national Dock is that when Lemass assembled 18 ocean going ships to feed the nation during 1939-1945, he knew they needed a drydock so the state took over Cork Dockyard for the use of ISL. In latter years the State has relinquished it's responsibility for key infrastructure to profit motivated entities. There is now some plan afoot at DSG and it isn't to improve ship repair and maintenance. The site except for sheds is flattened.

EUFighter
6th August 2020, 10:39
No beaches - then use the slipways

na grohmiti
6th August 2020, 10:44
No beaches - then use the slipways

There is no way to get off the slipways. They are at an incline and don't finish on the seabed. They are designed for ships to slide off into a high tide. They don't work the other way round.

ancientmariner
26th September 2020, 11:07
Ok. Ways to skin cats. No beaches at DSG yard. Just to note. I spent 2 years in total standing by building two ships at VCD. The offices and facilities were under the Building Slips and were adjacent and parallel to the graving dock. When a ship is docked, and dry, all ship's domestics shuts down except a single galley outlet for grey water. The crews used the wash and restrooms ashore. There seems to be no assignable facilities adjacent to the Dock now. The History of this sole national Dock is that when Lemass assembled 18 ocean going ships to feed the nation during 1939-1945, he knew they needed a drydock so the state took over Cork Dockyard for the use of ISL. In latter years the State has relinquished it's responsibility for key infrastructure to profit motivated entities. There is now some plan afoot at DSG and it isn't to improve ship repair and maintenance. The site except for sheds is flattened.

Given the imminent isolation of Ireland by the loss of the land bridge to Europe we need to refocus on our Maritime weaknesses. We must strive to be more self sufficient and not expect others to save us. In the upcoming Defence proposals/evaluations it is time to decide, once and for all, a Naval Stance for Ireland. Navy's are just NOT for Fishery Protection, and maritime policework , but require a series of response capabilities to reach a deterrence level for modern threats. Right now we are floundering and are losing manpower for more than two or more years. The result is a resizing mindset which of course weakens responses, and numbs ambition towards new tonnage and capability. In the mean time several countries are building up Navies and adding SSK's for the first time.

na grohmiti
26th September 2020, 11:47
Given the imminent isolation of Ireland by the loss of the land bridge to Europe we need to refocus on our Maritime weaknesses. We must strive to be more self sufficient and not expect others to save us. In the upcoming Defence proposals/evaluations it is time to decide, once and for all, a Naval Stance for Ireland. Navy's are just NOT for Fishery Protection, and maritime policework , but require a series of response capabilities to reach a deterrence level for modern threats. Right now we are floundering and are losing manpower for more than two or more years. The result is a resizing mindset which of course weakens responses, and numbs ambition towards new tonnage and capability. In the mean time several countries are building up Navies and adding SSK's for the first time.

We only have to look at NZ, with a similar population and economy as ours, and a similar security profile. They can manage a Naval fleet of Helicopter capable OPVs and an MRV, as well as a fleet oiler, Dive support ship and 2 frigates. And without the financial support from their neighbouring continental states... OK they have crewing issues too, but nowhere near our problems..
All it takes is political will.

ancientmariner
25th October 2020, 10:00
We only have to look at NZ, with a similar population and economy as ours, and a similar security profile. They can manage a Naval fleet of Helicopter capable OPVs and an MRV, as well as a fleet oiler, Dive support ship and 2 frigates. And without the financial support from their neighbouring continental states... OK they have crewing issues too, but nowhere near our problems..
All it takes is political will.

This week from Nautical journals "Future Mine hunting system comes to CLYDE". It is a GRP style half decker which is equipped with side scan sonar and other tracking sensors to allow it map an area and detect the presence of UW ordnance or hazards. Although developmental with ATLAS Electronik on board it has reached Initial Operating Cabability ( IOC ) at HMNB CLYDE. It operates Crew on Board, Crew Ashore, or Autonomously. The boat is named RNMB HARRIER-Google for more information. The benefits might be many more units deployable for harbour, estuarine, river, or canal areas. Ships with ROV's and target destruction means may be still relevant for routes at sea.

EUFighter
25th October 2020, 10:16
This week from Nautical journals "Future Mine hunting system comes to CLYDE". It is a GRP style half decker which is equipped with side scan sonar and other tracking sensors to allow it map an area and detect the presence of UW ordnance or hazards. Although developmental with ATLAS Electronik on board it has reached Initial Operating Cabability ( IOC ) at HMNB CLYDE. It operates Crew on Board, Crew Ashore, or Autonomously. The boat is named RNMB HARRIER-Google for more information. The benefits might be many more units deployable for harbour, estuarine, river, or canal areas. Ships with ROV's and target destruction means may be still relevant for routes at sea.

It is the Atlas Elektronik ARCIMS system, an 11m remote vessel that has been in development for some years. It can be ship based or shore based, indeed for the latter it can be truck mounted to allow ease of transport around the country.
https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/solutions/mine-warfare-systems/arcims.html

ancientmariner
26th October 2020, 14:44
We only have to look at NZ, with a similar population and economy as ours, and a similar security profile. They can manage a Naval fleet of Helicopter capable OPVs and an MRV, as well as a fleet oiler, Dive support ship and 2 frigates. And without the financial support from their neighbouring continental states... OK they have crewing issues too, but nowhere near our problems..
All it takes is political will.

Yes absolutely. Given the incident in the English Channel yesterday we need to look at and plan as to how we respond to un- warranted incidents at sea. A VTS monitoring of AIS information is the first clue to ships behaving abnormally or in a wrong approach lane. The follow up procedures when intervention becomes necessary is BY WHOM and with WHAT. Our National lack of response was aired not far away from Tuskar Lighthouse just a week ago, when a 4000 tonne container ship lost power.

sofa
26th October 2020, 16:39
oo

Egbeygia
26th October 2020, 18:03
Considering that incident was concluded successfully through a combination of Coastguard coordination, RNLI response and a Waterford harbour tug, all within 4 hours, when the nearest naval asset was 10 hours away, I'm intrigues to know what alternative you propose, other than one of exorbitant cost.

ancientmariner
8th November 2020, 17:05
Considering that incident was concluded successfully through a combination of Coastguard coordination, RNLI response and a Waterford harbour tug, all within 4 hours, when the nearest naval asset was 10 hours away, I'm intrigues to know what alternative you propose, other than one of exorbitant cost.

The rescue was provided by the direct intervention of 3 RNLI ocean lifeboats that used their combined pulling power to hold the 4000 tonner until the tug could connect a tow. Rescues at sea of this nature require the vessel in trouble, or potential trouble, to contact national agencies , over stipulated channels, and ask for the required assistance. In a case where channels are NOT used, and other means of communications come into play, then the State should be operating a VTS system, with a tracking capability, to monitor the passage of vessels around our coasts. If vessels deviate from prescribed routes in the English Channel, they can be called by name or even overflown by French or British aircraft. Our Coast Guard should have a Surface picture.

CTU
8th November 2020, 18:30
Considering that incident was concluded successfully through a combination of Coastguard coordination, RNLI response and a Waterford harbour tug, all within 4 hours, when the nearest naval asset was 10 hours away, I'm intrigues to know what alternative you propose, other than one of exorbitant cost.

Maybe you should look up the story of the Penlee Lifeboat Disaster to see what could happen if the situation was in less then ideal weather conditions.

na grohmiti
8th November 2020, 19:42
Maybe you should look up the story of the Penlee Lifeboat Disaster to see what could happen if the situation was in less then ideal weather conditions.

39th anniversary only around the corner. Blink of an eye. Still ashamed I ever worked for UT, knowing their policies after the disaster.

Egbeygia
9th November 2020, 00:39
Maybe you should look up the story of the Penlee Lifeboat Disaster to see what could happen if the situation was in less then ideal weather conditions.

I am more than aware of the Penlee Lifeboat Disaster and to be honest I find it a bit disingenuous on your part to compare the current capabilities of the RNLI's Severn, Tamar and Trent-class boats to a 47ft Watson as was lost on 19 December 1980. Though I shouldn't be that surprised considering that most references on here are pre-1999. Also the Hook Hd incident was successfully concluded in a Force 8-9 or were you looking for a full hurricane to prove your point?

Egbeygia
9th November 2020, 00:47
The rescue was provided by the direct intervention of 3 RNLI ocean lifeboats that used their combined pulling power to hold the 4000 tonner until the tug could connect a tow. Rescues at sea of this nature require the vessel in trouble, or potential trouble, to contact national agencies , over stipulated channels, and ask for the required assistance. In a case where channels are NOT used, and other means of communications come into play, then the State should be operating a VTS system, with a tracking capability, to monitor the passage of vessels around our coasts. If vessels deviate from prescribed routes in the English Channel, they can be called by name or even overflown by French or British aircraft. Our Coast Guard should have a Surface picture.

I can assure you that the Irish Coastguard does have a surface picture, fed from a number of sources and monitored at all times. Vessels acting on contravention of the Rules, displaying incorrect Nav Status for instance, are contacted, as are vessels at anchor outside port limits. I'm unsure as to why you find it necessary to fault those involved in a successfully concluded rescue other than to serve a very narrow agenda in support of the NS,which I can assure you at this moment in time is a pale imitation of the Service you were a member of.

ancientmariner
9th November 2020, 10:16
39th anniversary only around the corner. Blink of an eye. Still ashamed I ever worked for UT, knowing their policies after the disaster.

Brand new ship with an unfamiliar " run " crew sailing into a major storm , is an undertaken that needs some thought. The consequences were severe with the loss of two vessels and all crews. I know the enquiry mentioned contaminated fuel but high on the list, to be considered, is displacement of lube oil levels in a gearbox, in a heavy roll, that can cause a loss of lube oil indication, and an automatic shut down blowing compressed air through fuel lines. It would take a day of stripping and bleeding oil to get such an incidence rectified and the engine restarted. In the SAR task there is a point when an extreme amount of courage and luck will be needed for a positive outcome. Occasionally it can be one chance to none as in this case. RIP. From experience we added slightly higher levels of gear box oil , after discussion with the box manufacturers, to mitigate engine shut downs, rolls of more than 23% degrees used to prompt alarms in monitoring systems.

na grohmiti
9th November 2020, 11:13
Brand new ship with an unfamiliar " run " crew sailing into a major storm , is an undertaken that needs some thought. The consequences were severe with the loss of two vessels and all crews. I know the enquiry mentioned contaminated fuel but high on the list, to be considered, is displacement of lube oil levels in a gearbox, in a heavy roll, that can cause a loss of lube oil indication, and an automatic shut down blowing compressed air through fuel lines. It would take a day of stripping and bleeding oil to get such an incidence rectified and the engine restarted. In the SAR task there is a point when an extreme amount of courage and luck will be needed for a positive outcome. Occasionally it can be one chance to none as in this case. RIP. From experience we added slightly higher levels of gear box oil , after discussion with the box manufacturers, to mitigate engine shut downs, rolls of more than 23% degrees used to prompt alarms in monitoring systems.

Combine that with the skipper bringing his family aboard on an unauthorised stop, his priorities changed. Alcohol was also a large issue, reports suggest the crew of the ship did not respond to instructions from the Solomon Browne.
Having sailed on a sister ship less than 10 years later (a ship which had also lost its entire bridge due to being beam on to a large wave) it would not take much to put the engine out of action. The sound of the engine alarm going off during a rough passage still lives with my memories. UT (a Flag of Convenience company, based in Kent) had a woeful safety record, in the 4 months I was aboard they lost 6 crew due to accidents aboard ship. My own maritime career was cut short due to burns received while cargo handling. Thankfully they are no more.

ancientmariner
9th November 2020, 15:09
This week from Nautical journals "Future Mine hunting system comes to CLYDE". It is a GRP style half decker which is equipped with side scan sonar and other tracking sensors to allow it map an area and detect the presence of UW ordnance or hazards. Although developmental with ATLAS Electronik on board it has reached Initial Operating Cabability ( IOC ) at HMNB CLYDE. It operates Crew on Board, Crew Ashore, or Autonomously. The boat is named RNMB HARRIER-Google for more information. The benefits might be many more units deployable for harbour, estuarine, river, or canal areas. Ships with ROV's and target destruction means may be still relevant for routes at sea.

An attempt to future proof Defence and Security systems is discussed and outlined in General Nick Carter's paper on "The Integrated Operating Concept " and is worth a read. In future, and current, Naval developments we need to minimise illegal Cyper attacks on the ships overall operating system. Most modern ships now have an Integrated Bridge System, Integrated navigation system, and Integrated Combat System. These systems talk to each other and receive information over the ether by " widecast" routes. The systems so updated and informed is vulnerable to deliberate contamination of the overall system by strategic attacks on Satellite, electronic, and internet routes. Currently WINDOWS systems are deemed vulnerable. A review group has proposed that information needs to be protected by codes and dedicated passwords. All up and downloads to ships should be similar in routine to transactions on line to your bank. Carter feels the leaders in attacks within all ether space is the PLA. In the current climate of on-going under the counter global warefare we need to take guidance from allies and follow best practice now and in the future.

ancientmariner
10th November 2020, 14:51
An attempt to future proof Defence and Security systems is discussed and outlined in General Nick Carter's paper on "The Integrated Operating Concept " and is worth a read. In future, and current, Naval developments we need to minimise illegal Cyper attacks on the ships overall operating system. Most modern ships now have an Integrated Bridge System, Integrated navigation system, and Integrated Combat System. These systems talk to each other and receive information over the ether by " widecast" routes. The systems so updated and informed is vulnerable to deliberate contamination of the overall system by strategic attacks on Satellite, electronic, and internet routes. Currently WINDOWS systems are deemed vulnerable. A review group has proposed that information needs to be protected by codes and dedicated passwords. All up and downloads to ships should be similar in routine to transactions on line to your bank. Carter feels the leaders in attacks within all ether space is the PLA. In the current climate of on-going under the counter global warefare we need to take guidance from allies and follow best practice now and in the future.

In the second line above please delete Cyper and substitute CYBER. The overall problem is the constant change in the pipeline and the growing number of actors and providers. There is estimated to be 25 or so different systems outfits available to ships. An analysis of our security is apt at this time.

na grohmiti
10th November 2020, 16:34
In the second line above please delete Cyper and substitute CYBER. The overall problem is the constant change in the pipeline and the growing number of actors and providers. There is estimated to be 25 or so different systems outfits available to ships. An analysis of our security is apt at this time.

One of the problems with buying off the shelf electronic navaids and engineering management systems, is you have no control over what eavesdropping software is built in. Some is straightforward, storing user information and experience as a means to improve subsequent versions. These can be manipulated by those with ill intent. Some are designed from the outset to have eavesdropping software built in for nefarious purposes. Huawei are widely suspected to have engaged in this practice in their phones, and they are currently assisting ESB networks in rolling out the new broadband network in Ireland. I have to say I was surprised when one of their Technicians knocked on my door. Clearly Chinese, perfect english.
When the Sincgars was introduced, we knew from the outset that the only ones who could listen in were, those on the same net, or the US military, who had permitted us to use certain features of their equipment.
From a cyber point of view, as always, once you isolate software from external networks, you maintain some level of security. However software updates and upgrades necessitate connecting to the mother ship, electronically. This leaves all other connected systems also open to eavesdropping.
And then to top it off, you have crew members using social media, which 30 years ago was the dream of intel gatherers. Storis of US servicemen using Garmin watches to map their runs, within area 51, generating fantasting up to date maps for those who wanted them.
During the Falklands Conflict almost 40 years ago, the RN headed south more or less in Radio Silence. Comms to Whitehall came via telex. Ship to ship signalling was done by VS only. And this was before the days of electronic snooping. The only way you could intercept a VS message was if you were standing between sender and receiver.

DeV
10th November 2020, 17:17
Not forgetting GPS can be turned off by the US, jammed or spoofed

Remember the Stuxnet worm? Specifically designed to target Siemens made PLUs and introduced to an Iranian nuclear reactor via a USB key

DeV
10th November 2020, 17:20
The think about Cyber is it doesn’t have to be a sophisticated NSA, Cyber Force, etc etc State actor that causes the compromise. It could be a white hat (someone who does no harm but penetrates the system just so that they can do it (to them self or others) or a black hat (intend on harm). It could be a group of hackers, a lone wolf or a disgruntled employee (either in the software provider or your own company/force).

ancientmariner
11th November 2020, 09:47
The think about Cyber is it doesn’t have to be a sophisticated NSA, Cyber Force, etc etc State actor that causes the compromise. It could be a white hat (someone who does no harm but penetrates the system just so that they can do it (to them self or others) or a black hat (intend on harm). It could be a group of hackers, a lone wolf or a disgruntled employee (either in the software provider or your own company/force).

My first introduction to automated chart systems, whereby charts were updated by an Admiralty CD, was about 1992. They were the old rasterscan charts provided by the Admiralty known as the ARCS system. The navigator loaded his own corrections which for want of a better description reprinted as new all charts registered to the ship and known to Chart Agent. Military vessels and systems at the time also used a system known as Link 11. It allowed units, including units in dynamic situations, to interchange operational information. The current free to air cannot be secure unless some way is found to control inputs, corral them, classify them, and reject trash.

na grohmiti
11th November 2020, 11:31
My first introduction to automated chart systems, whereby charts were updated by an Admiralty CD, was about 1992. They were the old rasterscan charts provided by the Admiralty known as the ARCS system. The navigator loaded his own corrections which for want of a better description reprinted as new all charts registered to the ship and known to Chart Agent. Military vessels and systems at the time also used a system known as Link 11. It allowed units, including units in dynamic situations, to interchange operational information. The current free to air cannot be secure unless some way is found to control inputs, corral them, classify them, and reject trash.

Call me old fashioned but I still prefer a paper backup showing all chart corrections since chart was issued. Even an electronic backup of same, with active notices to mariners etc.

DeV
12th November 2020, 11:27
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40080479.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

ancientmariner
12th November 2020, 13:06
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40080479.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Given that the head of MAOC is M. Sullivan an irish ex-Garda, and that Ireland has a history of successful interdictions on drugs and arms, we are most likely to be asked by his organisation to act more in the surveillance role to deter use of subsurface means of smuggling. It is something that we say we do, however to be effective it needs to be more sustained and continuous, much as the inputs by the US and Brits, and maybe Dutch, in Caribbean area patrols by surface units and helicopters, where cigarette boats and submersibles are in regular use. Possibly we need to increase the size of patrol area by the MPA's to increase first contacts of illegal activity and brush up our ASW.

na grohmiti
12th November 2020, 13:23
The term "narco-sub" is misleading. It isn't a sub, it is more like a cigarette boat, with a tiny surface profile from the helm cockpit. The remainder of the hull remains below the surface. The vessel leaves a considerable wake, not to mention engine and exhaust IR signature.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/04/61/44/1251595/3/rawImage.jpg
The Key to monitoring and detection is from the air, either from Long Range MPA with high end electro optics, Ship based helis or UAV with the same optics.
But you have to be there first.

ancientmariner
12th November 2020, 14:05
The term "narco-sub" is misleading. It isn't a sub, it is more like a cigarette boat, with a tiny surface profile from the helm cockpit. The remainder of the hull remains below the surface. The vessel leaves a considerable wake, not to mention engine and exhaust IR signature.

The Key to monitoring and detection is from the air, either from Long Range MPA with high end electro optics, Ship based helis or UAV with the same optics.
But you have to be there first.

It is a description for a craft with minimal freeboard and is semi-submersed consequentially. This one had a crew of 3, of which 2 Ecuadorians were captured and one absconded free. The vessel is about 68feet long and 7 feet wide in the amidships. They were 20 days at sea and couldn't transfer the loot due to sea conditions. The conundrum is, based on 2000m range, how did its voyage begin, was it initially towed by another vessel, did it enter another port with a mother ship, to prepare the boat and its crew for the final approach to Spain. Given the Industry might and value in many billions, we can expect more of the same. The cartels could afford to build or buy a real submarine, the only difficulty is putting together an experienced crew. Money won't be a drawback for further attempts.

EUFighter
12th November 2020, 18:15
It is a description for a craft with minimal freeboard and is semi-submersed consequentially. This one had a crew of 3, of which 2 Ecuadorians were captured and one absconded free. The vessel is about 68feet long and 7 feet wide in the amidships. They were 20 days at sea and couldn't transfer the loot due to sea conditions. The conundrum is, based on 2000m range, how did its voyage begin, was it initially towed by another vessel, did it enter another port with a mother ship, to prepare the boat and its crew for the final approach to Spain. Given the Industry might and value in many billions, we can expect more of the same. The cartels could afford to build or buy a real submarine, the only difficulty is putting together an experienced crew. Money won't be a drawback for further attempts.

There have been some "true" submarines found already but it is not known if any have entered service. What is clear that it is not too difficult to build them, even in Europe some people have built them in their back yards. As for experienced crews that should not be an issue, Columbia, Venezuela, Peru and Ecuador all have submarines in their navies so buying a crew is possible.

DeV
12th November 2020, 18:29
The South American’s manage to build them in the middle of the Jungle

https://youtu.be/yqYoif-9c64

ancientmariner
12th November 2020, 20:20
The South American’s manage to build them in the middle of the Jungle

https://youtu.be/yqYoif-9c64

Well done. An Oscar for that one.

Turkey
15th November 2020, 14:19
accept no substitute: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TADqQk1lpy8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

na grohmiti
17th November 2020, 11:56
This looks like a useful upgrade to the P60s, should the will be there. I know the mast is already designed to take an air search radar, 4D would be a huge improvement.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/database/document/2019-03/Thales-NS50-Brochure.pdf

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/database/assets/images/2020-10/NS50_infographic.PNG

ancientmariner
17th November 2020, 19:56
[QUOTE=na grohmiti;482200]This looks like a useful upgrade to the P60s, should the will be there. I know the mast is already designed to take an air search radar, 4D would be a huge improvement.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/database/document/2019-03/Thales-NS50-Brochure.pdf

I think we certainly should advance our technology to do the things expected of us. Electronic Scanned Array radars are a good aid and certainly should be fitted on the MRV as a defensive measure coupled with modern CIWS elements. A refit to p60's should be considered. Do we have an attendance at Naval Industry Shows. Can anyone confirm that P51 is again heading for drydock?

ancientmariner
26th November 2020, 22:02
[ancientmariner

I think we certainly should advance our technology to do the things expected of us. Electronic Scanned Array radars are a good aid and certainly should be fitted on the MRV as a defensive measure coupled with modern CIWS elements. A refit to p60's should be considered. Do we have an attendance at Naval Industry Shows. Can anyone confirm that P51 is again heading for drydock?[/QUOTE]

On World navy News there is a piece on the delivery of the first of 8 x 15m Officer training craft for the RN. The delivery was from Atlas Electronik UK.
The Aeuk design features a 13 person workspace with PC work stations and shock mitigation seating. There is a briefing area with screen for displaying charts and navigation data. There is a recreational area, IMO navigation suite compatible with RN surface fleet. Berths , wet room, heads, comprehensive galley improves operational range and capability. The boat can be used in a various range of modes to meet specific requirements. Very useable for both School and reserve training. Safhaven Youghal have some connect with Atlas Electronik.

ancientmariner
19th January 2021, 11:46
[ancientmariner

I think we certainly should advance our technology to do the things expected of us. Electronic Scanned Array radars are a good aid and certainly should be fitted on the MRV as a defensive measure coupled with modern CIWS elements. A refit to p60's should be considered. Do we have an attendance at Naval Industry Shows. Can anyone confirm that P51 is again heading for drydock?

On World navy News there is a piece on the delivery of the first of 8 x 15m Officer training craft for the RN. The delivery was from Atlas Electronik UK.
The Aeuk design features a 13 person workspace with PC work stations and shock mitigation seating. There is a briefing area with screen for displaying charts and navigation data. There is a recreational area, IMO navigation suite compatible with RN surface fleet. Berths , wet room, heads, comprehensive galley improves operational range and capability. The boat can be used in a various range of modes to meet specific requirements. Very useable for both School and reserve training. Safhaven Youghal have some connect with Atlas Electronik.[/QUOTE]

At this stage the UK Shipbuilding Yards have built an evolving class of OPV vessels for both home use and for export. The trend has been to make later "Batches" more warship to fill the duties of local intervention. Think Defence.co.uk have an interesting paper by an Engineer K. Campbell on " Some thoughts on the Batch2 River Class" It is possible several of the enhancements are already included in our P60 class. The points to note are the Flight Deck and weight of a range of helicopters to be accommodated have a significant requirement for provision of necessary Hull strength. I don't agree with him that moving from 2 x 25mm guns to 2 x MK.44 Gatling 7.62mm guns is defensively sufficient. He mentions that our 76mm gun is only a Fishery deterrent and implies it is short of what is needed to meet possible aspirations. In passing our MRV armament and Defence suite needs early consideration. The typical combat logs ships have 2x CIWS, 2x 25/30mm, several HMG/LMG guns, a missile fitted for system, and all necessary CMS and Wide Area Search systems.

DeV
19th January 2021, 14:20
I think we certainly should advance our technology to do the things expected of us. Electronic Scanned Array radars are a good aid and certainly should be fitted on the MRV as a defensive measure coupled with modern CIWS elements. A refit to p60's should be considered. Do we have an attendance at Naval Industry Shows. Can anyone confirm that P51 is again heading for drydock?

One of the P60s went to an arms show and the left went mad


On World navy News there is a piece on the delivery of the first of 8 x 15m Officer training craft for the RN. The delivery was from Atlas Electronik UK.
The Aeuk design features a 13 person workspace with PC work stations and shock mitigation seating. There is a briefing area with screen for displaying charts and navigation data. There is a recreational area, IMO navigation suite compatible with RN surface fleet. Berths , wet room, heads, comprehensive galley improves operational range and capability. The boat can be used in a various range of modes to meet specific requirements. Very useable for both School and reserve training. Safhaven Youghal have some connect with Atlas Electronik.

But of little use for anything but training

https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/newsroom/article/atlas-elektronik-uk-delivers-first-of-class-15m-officer-training-boat-to-the-royal-navy.html




At this stage the UK Shipbuilding Yards have built an evolving class of OPV vessels for both home use and for export. The trend has been to make later "Batches" more warship to fill the duties of local intervention. Think Defence.co.uk have an interesting paper by an Engineer K. Campbell on " Some thoughts on the Batch2 River Class" It is possible several of the enhancements are already included in our P60 class. The points to note are the Flight Deck and weight of a range of helicopters to be accommodated have a significant requirement for provision of necessary Hull strength. I don't agree with him that moving from 2 x 25mm guns to 2 x MK.44 Gatling 7.62mm guns is defensively sufficient. He mentions that our 76mm gun is only a Fishery deterrent and implies it is short of what is needed to meet possible aspirations. In passing our MRV armament and Defence suite needs early consideration. The typical combat logs ships have 2x CIWS, 2x 25/30mm, several HMG/LMG guns, a missile fitted for system, and all necessary CMS and Wide Area Search systems.

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/thoughts-batch-2-river-class/

na grohmiti
19th January 2021, 15:08
On a slightly related note, the RN is planning to upgrade its Legacy 20mm Oerlikon/GAM-B01, GCM-AO3 Twin 30mm and Oerlikon 30mm cannon to 30mm Chain gun on the DS30M mk 2 platform, as seen on the more recent River Batch 2s. This uses the 30MM Mk 44 Bushmaster cannon, which is in use elsewhere in the Irish Defence Forces. Perhaps we could consider similar when it's time for the Rhino to go? Seems suitable given where the Rhino are currently mounted on the P50s and P60s.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-all-rounder-the-30mm-automated-small-calibre-gun-in-focus/
Also, the Dutch Navy are to retire the Goalkeeper CIWS from service by 2025, replacing it with RIM116 RAM combined with DART guided projectile fired from an OTO Melara 76mm.

DeV
19th January 2021, 15:43
On a slightly related note, the RN is planning to upgrade its Legacy 20mm Oerlikon/GAM-B01, GCM-AO3 Twin 30mm and Oerlikon 30mm cannon to 30mm Chain gun on the DS30M mk 2 platform, as seen on the more recent River Batch 2s. This uses the 30MM Mk 44 Bushmaster cannon, which is in use elsewhere in the Irish Defence Forces. Perhaps we could consider similar when it's time for the Rhino to go? Seems suitable given where the Rhino are currently mounted on the P50s and P60s.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-all-rounder-the-30mm-automated-small-calibre-gun-in-focus/
Also, the Dutch Navy are to retire the Goalkeeper CIWS from service by 2025, replacing it with RIM116 RAM combined with DART guided projectile fired from an OTO Melara 76mm.

Much bigger and heavier foot print I’d say

na grohmiti
19th January 2021, 17:15
Much bigger and heavier foot print I’d say

No more so than any automated replacement, and HPT will tell stories about the force on the deck of the old Oerlikon 20mm. It's mounted on GRP minehunters and patrol vessels so it should be fine....

ancientmariner
22nd January 2021, 11:09
Much bigger and heavier foot print I’d say

In general the deck takes the weight of the gun and its mounting. Ship decks are immensely strong taking the weights of all superstructure, boats, cranes, masts, casings etc. The bigger the weapon the larger, in spread, the bolt on gun ring/foundation. local strength can be added. The weapon discharge forces are allowed for within the gun mechanisms such as recoil and absorption design. The bigger problem for any upgrading , renewal, or replacement is bringing it from concept to implementation. The problem is trying to identify the Boss/ policy maker with speedy decision making for timely responses. We drag on, and on occasion roles get reversed, and big ticket items appear due to a politically driven imperative producing role changing ships and aircraft. To be honest we are a PDF of circumstances and with circumstances constantly changing, we lose sight of the role of any Defence Forces , and struggle to meet contingencies from a depleted locker of minimised responses. If the role is catered for adequately then response for all contingences becomes routine.

ancientmariner
28th January 2021, 21:06
[QUOTE=DeV;484452]One of the P60s went to an arms show and the left went mad



But of little use for anything but training

https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/newsroom/article/atlas-elektronik-uk-delivers-first-of-class-15m-officer-training-boat-to-the-royal-navy.html


More than 80% of sea training and ship system and characteristics training HAS to be carried out at sea. Initial training should be carried out on vessels designed for taking a bit of rough handling. All of our training is carried out on ships of high value. There is a burden placed on the shoulders of first time Captains that could be ameliorated by having smaller workhorse vessels to practice on. Other European Navies have scores of smaller craft for training and local tasking giving opportunity for step by step training, while we have NO training craft. I hope the point is taken up by the COD and the historic destruction of skills lost in ASW, MCM, FDO, HCO, and other specialisations cast away as ships come and go.

ancientmariner
27th February 2021, 11:03
I can assure you that the Irish Coastguard does have a surface picture, fed from a number of sources and monitored at all times. Vessels acting on contravention of the Rules, displaying incorrect Nav Status for instance, are contacted, as are vessels at anchor outside port limits. I'm unsure as to why you find it necessary to fault those involved in a successfully concluded rescue other than to serve a very narrow agenda in support of the NS,which I can assure you at this moment in time is a pale imitation of the Service you were a member of.

There is an evident weakness in the Surface picture as it requires the active co-operation of the traffic in your area of observation. The Safhaven Marine video recently of the grounded MV Alta, starting to break-up in stormy wave action, shows that for more than a week, we were unaware of a drifting ,unlit vessel, off our coast. Any other vessel could have run full tilt into the derelict with major consequences. VTS with radar or MPA's with tracking and analysis could have spotted her before grounding.
I accept that the USCG and RN are also culpable for allowing her to become derelict and later continuing to remain derelict. Our Surface picture is not interactive enough as we are missing surface scan by radar.

na grohmiti
27th February 2021, 12:01
There is an evident weakness in the Surface picture as it requires the active co-operation of the traffic in your area of observation. The Safhaven Marine video recently of the grounded MV Alta, starting to break-up in stormy wave action, shows that for more than a week, we were unaware of a drifting ,unlit vessel, off our coast. Any other vessel could have run full tilt into the derelict with major consequences. VTS with radar or MPA's with tracking and analysis could have spotted her before grounding.
I accept that the USCG and RN are also culpable for allowing her to become derelict and later continuing to remain derelict. Our Surface picture is not interactive enough as we are missing surface scan by radar.

Could the proposed installation of floating wind turbines off the SW coast provide a platform for Radar, extending our view off our most exposed, busy but remote coast? It's a shame that with the demise of Kinsale Alpha and Bravo we lose an AIS receiver.

ancientmariner
27th February 2021, 13:56
Could the proposed installation of floating wind turbines off the SW coast provide a platform for Radar, extending our view off our most exposed, busy but remote coast? It's a shame that with the demise of Kinsale Alpha and Bravo we lose an AIS receiver.

Offshore wind turbines are a whole new area of development. They are fixed in water of less than 60metres depth but require a triple legged foundation instead of a mono pole type. Over 60 metres they are floating on anchors with certain vulnerabilities. The latter will require positional monitoring equipment in case of storm or collision movement. VTS radar could be installed on headlands with central monitoring stations per coastal sector. The French coast from Le Havre to the Spanish Coast is covered by coastal radar. If the radar at Roches point was operating it would have picked up ALTA.

DeV
27th February 2021, 16:06
Wind turbines also can have a negative effect on radar

ancientmariner
27th February 2021, 16:13
Wind turbines also can have a negative effect on radar

Most likely and more so on anchored platforms with blades on a horizontal axis to reduce windage plus the effects of platform oscillations.

ancientmariner
4th March 2021, 21:40
There is an evident weakness in the Surface picture as it requires the active co-operation of the traffic in your area of observation. The Safhaven Marine video recently of the grounded MV Alta, starting to break-up in stormy wave action, shows that for more than a week, we were unaware of a drifting ,unlit vessel, off our coast. Any other vessel could have run full tilt into the derelict with major consequences. VTS with radar or MPA's with tracking and analysis could have spotted her before grounding.
I accept that the USCG and RN are also culpable for allowing her to become derelict and later continuing to remain derelict. Our Surface picture is not interactive enough as we are missing surface scan by radar.

The Marine Casualty Investigation Branch (MCIB) wants" a working group to explore the risks and potential costs to the State presented by derelict ships entering Irish waters and coming ashore in Ireland. it should make proposals for means to identify, track, monitor and interdict derelict ships before they endanger other ships and seafarers". It also struck me that the Irish Lights Commissioners had a Surface scan radar at the look out at Roches Point which was discontinued when they de-manned and sold the house to a retired mariner. I know it is fortuitous, but that radar would have seen ALTA. We definitely need better surveillance and strict speed and course monitoring of all surface vessels and query those not underway as to condition.