PDA

View Full Version : River class Patrol vessels..



Goldie fish
13th January 2003, 02:57
To Keep the semi amphibious one happy,here is a topic on the New RN patrol vessel....:D

Goldie fish
13th January 2003, 03:43
http://www.vtplc.com/images/original/735.jpg
EEZ Management Vessel (http://www.vtplc.com/shipbuilding/product.asp?ItemID=314&s=&catid=198#or)


A fine looking ship this..the only possible disadvantage being that she probably has a similar standard of accomodation as the peacocks...and the Naval service here like their bunk space!!
So the specifics..its one of VosperThornycroft's EEZ management vessel design,adapted to suit the needs of the RN,who believe it or not have envied the standard of the Irish PVs for years.The design has been developed to enable the vessel to undertake a wide range of duties necessary for effective EEZ Management, including:

#Anti pollution work
#Disaster relief
#Medical support
#Scientific research and hydrography
#Fishery protection
#Maintenance of navigational aids
#Salvage and Rescue
So far so good!:)
Accommodation for up to 48 personnel is provided to the Merchant Shipping Act and the RN Second Sea Lords Personnel Function Standards including all cabins with ensuite bathroom facilities. A complement of 28 can operate the vessel.
The RN though has decided to arm it with a 20mm and 2 gpmgs...fine for them..they have proper ships to back them up..we need more clout for our "boats".Bigger bang can be providedthe option for Light and/ or medium calibre guns with ammunition stowage being offered.

The standard design,not the river class specifically has some additional useful features
http://www.vtplc.com/images/original/739.jpg
A retractable helideck,suitable for landing a 9 tonne aircraft(daylight ops):D
and when you get tired of looking at it,you can pull it back to reveal a container deck,ideal for modules such as
#Field hospital
#Oil pollution dispersant
#Oil spill containment booms
#High capacity fire fighting
#Enhanced diving capability
#Decompression chamber
to name but a few..
Now thats an all purpose vessel if ever I saw one!
Did I mention it has a crane also? Oh..
http://www.vtplc.com/images/original/743.jpg
The option for a 24 tonne capacity crane enables the EMV to load and offload containers and large cargo without relying on shore side facilities. A stern gantry ‘A’ Frame can also be fitted with a SWL of 10 tonne, for buoy retrieval or salvage.
However all these options(and there are loads) would increase the size of ship from what the RN River class is.
http://www.vtplc.com/images/original/736.jpg
All in all I like it!

hptmurphy
13th January 2003, 21:50
was just about to publish something similar.Warship fleet international review .this month states that New Zealand is to aquire a couple of these as replacement for their Leander class frigates.Fine looking vessel...very functional.Available on lease...minimal out lay

Goldie fish
14th January 2003, 04:25
I must have missed that..is that the Dec/Jan issue?
Good publication..they done a good article on the Hong Kong visit by Niamh.

I think one,if not all of the RN ships is being built in Appledore..they seem to have good standing with the DoD now..who knows..The RN are leasing theirs..maybe they will appear on the market when they are finished with them..the Peacocks should be pretty clapped out by then..
Nice lines...too mny portholes tho..the lads below dont really need to see how rough it is outside..messy if you have a leaky seal too...
I always used the deadlight...specially if I was in port..nothing worse than having some freak loookin in at ye when youre gearin up for the night!
I notice They have covered up most of the ones on the PVs and only the osifers get them on eithne..Havent been on the New ones......yet..:D

I see also this type can have either the standard Halmatic RIB,a larger SOLAS rib or a wide beam "8m Sea Truck"workboat type thing..Landing craft anyone?:D
http://www.vtplc.com/images/original/853.JPG
Standard RIB,Halmatic Pacific 22

hptmurphy
14th January 2003, 15:45
January issue...its now gone monthly

Goldie fish
16th January 2003, 05:52
As i mentioned these are of RN design,though on further reading the standard of accomodation may be more akin to our vessels..With that in mind,what are the Peacocks really Like?
Saw one on TG4 the other night patrolling the irish Box and it struck me how much green sea they were shipping...The wipers on the bridge were attit pretty hard! Are they popular with the crews?
Mate of mine was a spark/mech on one a few years back,but his experience with the NS at the time was negative to say the least(being a spark getting mech pay) so most of his complaining was about the system. What have the naval types here heard about them? Has anyone served on them? I have been aboard them in port and I found them adequately compact. Is there much useful life left in them in all your opinions?

Goldie fish
8th March 2003, 02:20
If anyone could do with a ressurection,its the Naval service...
Maybe somebody will reply this time around..

This is what a ship looks like lads and lassies..

hptmurphy
9th March 2003, 23:51
An amphibian ..the fish who walks ? new title?

Come-quickly
10th March 2003, 15:21
Would this be for fishery protection or as a multirole "military" vessel (if it doesn't breach our neutrality)

Come-quickly
10th March 2003, 19:39
Oh and just out of curiosity anyone know how much it would cost to fit RIM-7 battery to the eithne or a river class?

paul g
10th March 2003, 21:44
Eithne is designed to be fitted with the RBS-70, and a few other thinhs, i've heard that space and weight was saved for anti-submarine weapons and possibly four exocets, though I am open to correction. Ships like the Norwegian nordkapp were desined to act as escorts in time of war, and indeed norway send one of its Coast Guard Nordkapps to the Gulf in 1991 rather than its navy's oslo frigates.

Goldie fish
11th March 2003, 01:39
It is referred to that

VT Shipbuilding can offer a wide range of products and services assisting Nations to fulfil their obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. VT has a range of vessels specifically designed to undertake EEZ Management Roles, both inshore and offshore. These include the EMV (EEZ Management Vessel) which forms the basis for the Royal Navy’s River Class OPV
So it is a EEZ Management vessel. The smart answer is , how military is an army lorry? Isn't it just an ordinary truck painted green?
Military is by nature defined by role rather than equipment. Policing the territorial waters of any nation when a ship is armed,to me is a military role.
Multi role is the way most smaller Naval forces seem to be moving. Even the USN has moved away from purely ASW frigates or Destroyers in their more modern vessels,when you compare the Leahy or Kidd class to the modern AEGIS ships

Stinger
11th March 2003, 12:41
What do you think the chances are for the Irish navy getting ahold of some of these vessels in a couple of years? Would it be possible then to change the 20mm guns to some thing like that on Niamh and Roisin? Personally I dont think they sound like a bad option for us.

Come-quickly
11th March 2003, 15:50
Interesting to hear about eithne's potential, but do the other PVs share her potential?

Aidan
11th March 2003, 17:05
I'd heard almost exactly the same as Paul regarding Eithne's hidden potential, ie: the ability to be fitted with SHORAD SAM like RBS 70 or Mistral, lightweight torps and Exocet (apparently to be fitted behind the heli-deck).

Not sure about the others though, especially since none of them have even nearly as comprehensive an electronics fit as P31. No other sonars, so the torps are unlikely. No idea about how good their surface search radars are though.

hptmurphy
11th March 2003, 17:35
Ah lads! this is pure fiction.Eitne is not designed to carry any missile system.The closes to a missile system is the 57mm Wallop launchers .Only possible upgrades would be a pair of GPMGs.the after deck is not stressed for weapons.There are no links to the ops room and there is no place to store weapons of this sort.acess to the magazine is very restricted.hand held SAMs would be the only option.
****all point in comitting ships of this build to any operational area as they carry no armour and damage control is similar to that of a large trawler or small freighter.

Come-quickly
11th March 2003, 18:06
So I'm thinking a peace enforcement role would require a whole new fleet or a specific militarised fleet arm?

hptmurphy
12th March 2003, 00:42
yep. all the NS vessels are catagorised as patrol vessels.

The only two that come any way close to warship designation is the Peacocks.

all the rest were built to LLoyds of London civil shipping standards.
the PVs were built on a modified trawler hull design that was comercially available.To qualify for EU funding the rest were built as fishery protection vessel standards and equiped as such. The weapons fit is the maximum allowable under these regulations.
The helo on the eithne was purchased for FP and SAR and has no anti shipping or anti submarine role.
The cost of building pure warships far exceeds the cost of the current navy as these ships have to be built to military standards and not to LLoyds.
here the navies role is defined as protecting the sovereign waters and natural resources but it says nothing of defending against armed incursion.
We all saw what happen to HMS sheffield and the Arrow class frigates in the Falklands well this would be the fate of the current NS ships as they were built of similar materials and suffer the same deffeciences.

We have never operated pure warships as these are not multifunctional and are far too expensive to operate.

Come-quickly
12th March 2003, 15:50
Would it be possible to use something like this? http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/naval_team/ .

I'm thinking of a mix of Sf 100 (for slua), SF 300 and maybe 2 or more SF 3000's as the centre of a military fleet?

hptmurphy
12th March 2003, 21:23
yes they certainly seem the type but it depend son costs.The smaller vessels would be ideal foe NSR operations and could easily perform inshore protection operations .What needs to happen is an increase in manpower to make the operationof the larger vessels viable.

Come-quickly
15th March 2003, 23:22
What about the US cyclone class with Rib deployment from the bow, in a COIN role (forgive me I'm compiling a naval service wish list for Icun's board and know relatively little about our needs and possible capabilities, within reason) What roles would you envisage in a good but not ideal (nothing which radically alters the shape of Irish society).

hptmurphy
16th March 2003, 00:36
With the equipment available the NS carries out the roles tasked quite adequately.to diversify it would take major investment and retraining .I think the COIN should be left to the ARW who specialise in all this cloak and dagger stuff.

Modern day COIN at sea is carried out by marine forces inserted by helo usually the S70 variety or the sea lynx. as our naval forces are not readily equipped with such machines we have to revert to semirigids and armed boarding parties .This we have done for many years often with great sucess.
As i said without major investment this is not going to change and the urgencey should be to carry as manh S/Rs as possible with the majority of the crew of the mother vessel trained in such a role

Goldie fish
27th July 2003, 23:42
Good review of this ship type in the current issue of Warships International Fleet review.
Apparently the Bulbous Bow design is unique (and quite strange looking)

hptmurphy
30th July 2003, 01:08
Reading from an old ships monthly it seems that the P50 class are not all that they seem.

they are actually an adaptation of another vessel chile or ecuador I think which is ironic given all the shit the NS spouted about indigenous deasigns and the fact that the Ns tried to flog the plans of the P31 class to several southern American countries with out any sucess.

Emer is now only ayear or two short of Deirdres retirement age ....Is the Roisin class her actual replacement or will there be supplementary units.Flog another barracks ....but another PV....sounds like a plan....If any body else from athlone ends up in court maybe this wil become a viable option.

Farel'
30th July 2003, 15:31
The P50 is a variation of the Canadian Vigilant design,as used (with a helipad) by the Coastguard in Maritius(sp). You will find a photo of this type on the Jastram website. The design was modified to suit our needs,but not much really.

trellheim
26th September 2003, 01:00
River class FPV Pennant 282 .

hptmurphy
26th September 2003, 01:05
any pictures?

yooklid
26th September 2003, 04:54
Link (http://www.merseyshipping.co.uk/photofeatures/services/RoyalNavy/severn/severn02.JPG)

Fox
26th September 2003, 16:55
Tis a fine vessel to be sure yarghhhhhhhhh

Goldie fish
26th September 2003, 18:00
What city?

trellheim
27th September 2003, 21:18
Dublin.

Looked like they were on the piss for the weekend; the rating left minding the gangway did not look happy.

Such is life.

Fox
20th October 2003, 00:20
Hms Tyne was in Galway as part of the "Hands across the Border" initiative. Splendid ship, just launched this July, in fact it was launched the Day of the Salthill Airshow this year!!!

It was in Galway last weekend.

Some of you may remember it for being in the News for having been the first UK Naval ship to dock alongside LE Eithne in Belfast....History in the Making!

There was a heavily Armed Gardai presence for it's arrival and it's stay. The crew loved Galway and there is talks of it returning to Salthill for the 2004 Airshow! Most crew members bought Claddagh Rings.

The crew also stayed in Dun Ui Mhaoiliosa Barracks (Renmore) and played soccer with the 1st Bn (An Chead Chath) and they lost to the 1st Bn by 12 to 1!

Dogwatch
20th June 2006, 01:13
The new RN River Class PV launched last week. The main difference between her & the three other River Class will be:

Helipad capable of takeing Merlin sized Helos
Air Surveillance Radar
Extra accomodation for embarked troops / staff
Operate in the Falkland Islands for 282 days per year.

This one hull is replacing the two Castle Class OPV(H)'s

Aidan
21st June 2006, 12:02
We'll take 4 please.

DeV
21st June 2006, 19:44
Compared to Niamh - These are slightly larger, slower, have longer range and are poorly armed.

Although they have a larger stern deck and a crane (capable of 25 tonne lift) making it more versatile.

Dogwatch
7th February 2007, 21:45
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/45766-114Clyde-sea-trials-a.jpg

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/45765-307Clyde-sea-level-se.jpg

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/45765-279Clyde-sea-level-se.jpg

HMS Clyde (the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel) completed sea trials in Dec 2006 & was handed over to the RN on 30 January 2007.

Goldie fish
7th February 2007, 21:59
Fine looking ship.

Dogwatch
2nd March 2007, 19:41
HMS Clyde proceeding to sea on 01 Mar 2007, under the White Ensign. Nice compact air search radar. Wonder if one of those type could be retrofitted onto an LPV??!

Nice sized tug aswell, nice replacement for Seabhac??

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2062&g2_serialNumber=1

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2065&g2_serialNumber=1
Long haul to the Falkland Islands!!

Goldie fish
2nd March 2007, 20:00
Air search radar is vital if you have a Helipad. You need to be able to accurately vector the aircraft to your position. No real point putting them on an LPV.

Seabhac was never a tug...she is a "rope boat". :)

That said, I did see one of the MoD tugs for sale recently. How old is Seabhac? More Importantly, is the paint thicker than the steel at this stage of its life, and how does one pronounce it correctly?

showak or sha-vok?

ZULU
2nd March 2007, 20:09
Our Tug was bulit in 1958, when we sold her to her new owner last year he got an x-ray of the hull. She had lost only couple of mm max at the keel. Still had 1" left. Not bad for the amount of time, work, sinkings she went through.

The Hull will rust from the inside out anyway.

Corrosion will hit the sharpest, pointest bits on the outside first. As we learned with the fathers new/old motorboat project

hptmurphy
3rd March 2007, 00:16
Like the Big PVs..as for the rusty tug rope boat in Cork....there was interest placed in the used of inshore tugs in a post here passed..have to say I never saw them used as as such way back then..but times and attitudes change..or maybe its just me...

Dogwatch
3rd March 2007, 13:17
Air search radar is vital if you have a Helipad. You need to be able to accurately vector the aircraft to your position. No real point putting them on an LPV.

No real point??
No point in having the capability to track aircraft during embargo operations (i.e. Shannon ops for the past few years)?
No real point to be able to use the air search radar to direct your FCS onto a target?
No real point to give the state it's only truly mobile long range air search capability?
No real point to be able to control SAR air assets when a ship is On Scene Co-Ordinator in SAR Ops?

I would argue that having an air search radar is another asset that (in relative terms) is quite cheap for the long term benefit and capability it gives (not the navy) the PDF.

Goldie fish
3rd March 2007, 13:40
Thats what the HPV is for. Perhaps it would be a useful asset on the future Larger Multi Role Vessel, which would be designed specifically for the roles you suggest above. However retro fitting them on a mast designed only to carry the basic Navigation radar, and on a ship designed only for Long distance EEZ protection would be excessive.

Retro fitting could prove more costly than fitting them from the start. To do it properly you need to tie it into your FCS. Then you need an ops room like Eithne sort of has(when all the equipment is operational). Better off to include it as standard equipment on all future vessels. Maybe if the LPVs are in a mid life major refit it could be considered, as you would be ripping everything out anyway, but not just to add the Air Search Radar.

thebig C
13th May 2007, 23:54
http://news.bn.gs/images/articles/20070410105752870_1.jpg


VT Group has been contracted to build and manage three (3) Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV), including associated training and long-term maintenance support, that are to be supplied to Trinidad. The programme is valued at more than £150 million. Contracts were signed in Trinidad on Thursday April 5.

Design work will start immediately on the 90 metre long ships, which will be used for a range of Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) management, special operations and maritime law enforcement tasks. They will be operated by the Trinidad and Tobago Coastguard and the first ship will be handed over in 2009.

Dogwatch
9th September 2007, 13:32
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2007/0708/0708_images/0007082001ax.jpg

Slightly old news! (20/08/2007)

NEW patrol ship HMS Clyde today bids farewell to Portsmouth – possibly for good – as she sails south to begin work.
The souped-up River-class vessel takes over from HMS Dumbarton Castle as the Falklands guardship.
Clyde will be on duty in the South Atlantic for at least five years under a lease deal with Portsmouth-based shipbuilders VT Group who own and built the warship.
The aim is to carry out maintenance on Clyde in the Southern Hemisphere, rather than bringing her back to Blighty sporadically for an overhaul.
The ship commissioned last month, since when she has been conducting aviation trials and training around the UK before today’s departure for the south.
Over three weeks off the Cornish and Devon coasts, a Sea King from 771 NAS at Culdrose set down 300 times on Clyde to hone the skills of the flight deck crew and provide vital data for the rest of the Fleet (Clyde is the only River-class warship with a flight deck).
Once in the Falklands, she will be available for missions on 282 days a year, with her 40 or so crew being rotated every six months.
“It is a great honour to be deploying the ship for the first time. The ship’s company are looking forward to sailing in the southern hemisphere and are full of enthusiasm for the challenges that lie ahead,” said Clyde’s Commanding Officer, Lt Cdr Paul Pitcher.
Her predecessor will conduct a handover before returning to Portsmouth for decommissioning in November.
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2007/0708/0007082001.asp

hedgehog
9th September 2007, 16:19
Why is she termed river class

Goldie fish
9th September 2007, 16:53
Because she is named after a River, like the others in the class. Clyde, Severn,Tyne etc.

hedgehog
9th September 2007, 16:57
ahhhh

there was me thinking they patrol rivers as well

your answer makes a lot more sense

thanks

Goldie fish
9th September 2007, 17:08
Ton Class Didn't weigh a ton either. And Flower class were not made of daisy chains...

hedgehog
9th September 2007, 17:09
now your taking the piss out of me

Goldie fish
9th September 2007, 17:10
No I'm not. Its true.

Dogwatch
10th October 2007, 23:37
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/soton1_20071008154403.jpg
RV with HMS Southampton.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/ships_20071008161115.jpg
HMS Dumbarton Castle, RFA Gold Rover and HMS Clyde

Clyde has finally arrived in the Falkland Islands and has relieved HMS Dumbarton Castle as the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel. She arrived on 21st September and, on the first day in theatre, hosted 35 personnel from Mount Pleasant, the military base in the Falklands, for an introductory brief on the ship’s capabilities. After two days of settling in, Clyde, along with HMS Dumbarton Castle, underwent a weeklong period of training under the control of staff from the Flag Officer Sea Training organisation who flew down from the UK for the period.

The training included fire fighting and damage control, Air Defence exercises, self protection exercises against fast inshore attack craft, beach landings and various navigation exercises including pilotage, a replenishment at sea and Officer of the Watch Manoeuvres.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10443

DeV
23rd March 2011, 23:04
Just found a presentation on the River class: http://www.offshorepatrolvessels.com/uploadedFiles/EventRedesign/UK/2010/September/11313004/Assets/opvsrn.pdf



They provide 320 sea days per year per hull
£30 million cost reduction for RN over 5 years (lease, manning, CLS)
3 OPVs delivered within 3 years of signature of contract
Contract amount (commerically sensitive) excludes crew, fuel & food, 75% lease, 25% support

320 operational days (230 patrol / 5 transit / 46 standoff / 19 OST & SCWT, 2 as required)
25 maintenance days (1x9 day Joint Maint period, 1x 16 day Joint Extended Maint Period)
The remaining 20 days are available to the RN if required (on repayment!)

Fishery protection takes up a total of 700 days tasked by MFA (pay proportion of operating costs (1 days costs MFA around £8k)), 42 day patrol, 12 days at sea, 2 days stand off. Doesn't patrol Scottish waters

2007/8 - 6478 Sightings, 1311 boarding, 22 detentions

3 watch manning, 3 watches of approx 15 personnel, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, XO in command 1/3 of time

OPV(H) is contracted for 282 days annually

DeV
23rd March 2011, 23:07
Contractor provides whole ship support:
Engineering - maintenance & manuals
Stores - Replenishments, repair, overhaul
Training - to tyoe
System Engineer

KPI

Benefits:
fixed monthly rate of charter
fixed daily rate for CLS charges
lower overheads
Improved availability
Excellent responsiveness to "ship stoppers"

River OPV:
20.5 kts
1800 t
2 x PAC 22 RIB
1 x 20mm
21 day endurance

OPV(H)
22 kts
2150 t
PAC 22 RIB, Rigid Raider Mk3
1 x 30mm, 2 x Miniguns, 5 x GPMG
30 day endurance

hptmurphy
24th March 2011, 14:52
Any idea what the average fuel consuption per hours is at cruising speed?

Given the P50s are a bit thirsty I wonder how it works out pound for pound.

DeV
24th March 2011, 19:06
Not sure but the range of the OPV(H) is 8000 nm

A/TEL
24th March 2011, 20:24
3 watch manning, 3 watches of approx 15 personnel, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, XO in command 1/3 of time

OPV(H) is contracted for 282 days annually

:neek:



Happy days if the NS patrols were like that...

Dogwatch
12th August 2014, 21:20
Whitehall today signed a £348m deal with shipbuilding BAE to provide the Fleet with three new patrol ships.

Work on the first of the trio, which will be similar to vessels built for the Brazilian Navy, will begin on the Clyde in October, with it in RN hands in 2017.

https://www.navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/20140812ax.jpg

THIS is the future shape of the busiest Royal Navy warships in UK waters.

Whitehall today signed a contract with BAE Systems to build three new patrol vessels for duties around the mother island – and beyond – from 2017.

Just shy of £350m is being spent with the defence firm, which will construct the trio in its yards on the Clyde.

The new vessels will be based on the Amazonas class of patrol ships BAE built for the Brazilian Navy in its Portsmouth yard – and which were on security duties during this summer’s World Cup.

All three will be bigger than the existing River class ships, which are on duty around the UK for more than 300 days a year, largely focusing on fishery protection work, but also acting as the RN’s eyes and ears in home waters to stop smuggling and terrorism and to help out in emergencies.

The ships in the as-yet-unnamed class will be 90 metres (295ft) long, reach at least 24kts, be able to host a Merlin helicopter and have a range of more than 6,300 miles – enough to take them from Portsmouth to South Africa or ‘Pirate Alley’ between Somalia and Yemen; the vessels are being designed to patrol the broader oceans as much as waters around the UK.

Work on the first ship will begin in October and it is due to be handed over to the RN in three years’ time. BAE has already begun work acquiring engines and gearboxes.

The £348m deal will sustain around 800 jobs in the shipbuilding industry and tide the BAE yards over between work ending on new carrier HMS Prince of Wales and construction beginning on the first Type 26 frigates later this decade.

The next defence review will determine whether the three new ships will be replacements for the three River-class vessels (which have been in service since 2003) or will be in addition to them.

https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/11085

http://navaltoday.com/2014/08/12/uk-awards-348-million-warship-contract/

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

£348m stg equates to €437.67m, which works out to be €146m per ship.......awful lot......... imho

https://www.navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/20140812ax-1.jpg
The RN’s three River-class patrol ships – Severn, Tyne and Mersey – meet up for their annual squadron exercise off Portsmouth. Picture: LA(Phot) Maxine Davies

pym
12th August 2014, 21:27
Is that 30mm main armament? Looks like it will have air search radar.

Would be interesting to compare its crew living space versus the P60's.

DeV
13th August 2014, 00:27
£348m stg equates to €437.67m, which works out to be €146m per ship.......awful lot......... imho

The EU should be investigating!

Basically if the RN hadn't have placed more orders they would have to pay the yard truck loads of money as part of a previous contract.

Dogwatch
13th August 2014, 00:30
Is that 30mm main armament? Looks like it will have air search radar.

Would be interesting to compare its crew living space versus the P60's.

30mm on Brazilian OPV, 76mm on Thai navy OPV of same design.

Big Al
13th August 2014, 09:06
is there a political aspect to this? get them built on the clyde to remind the jocks what they will miss if they vote for independence?

ropebag
13th August 2014, 10:37
is there a political aspect to this? get them built on the clyde to remind the jocks what they will miss if they vote for independence?

almost certainly - however, as Dev indicates, the UK shipbuilding industry has a contract with the MOD to ensure sovereign capability, we pay them to stay open, the cost of paying them to drink tea and whack off to Trisha is similar to the cost of paying them to build ships, so we may as well have the ships.

why is the cost per vessel of this new class so high in comparrison to the Irish Samuel Beckett class - is it mission fit, or BAE's cost model, or the cost of vessels plus the cost of keeping the yards open until the T26 build comes on stream?

Dogwatch
13th August 2014, 13:39
Is that 30mm main armament? Looks like it will have air search radar.

Would be interesting to compare its crew living space versus the P60's.

http://thailandhotels.ialldeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HTMS-Krabi-Royal-Thai-Navy.jpg
76mm on Thai Navy HTMS Krabi.

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/digitalmedia/mdaw/mtgx/~edisp/~extract/BAES_157505~1~staticrendition/748x421.jpg
30mm on Brazilian Navy Araguari.

pym
13th August 2014, 15:41
Thanks Dogwatch - but which gun are the UK opting for?

Regarding the difference in price - probably the biggest difference in sensor fit between these & the P60's is the radars;
Military oriented Terma Scanter air/surface radar versus the P60's Kelvin Hughes COTS system , but I don't think that would account for more than a couple of million per vessel?

In practice that means the RN vessels can use optical & radar to target the main gun - the P60's have nice optical sensors, but I don't know if the Kelvin Hughes set allows for automatic gun targeting, or if it features other mil attributes like ECCM etc.

From memory - I remember something about the NS opting for Lloyds commercial ship building standards versus Royal Navy going for their own mil specifications - which apparently has an impact on price. But I'll leave that to people who know something about ships to explain, and/or beat me over the head :)

The Terma Scanters would be a nice addition to the P60's eventually - and would probably be a necessary first step if you wanted the option of countermeasures like chaff etc.

The difference in the relative sizes of superstructure looks pretty huge - I guess the P60's have more creature comforts/living space at the expense of a flight deck.

Dogwatch
13th August 2014, 15:52
Thanks Dogwatch - but which gun are the UK opting for?

Regarding the difference in price - probably the biggest difference in sensor fit between these & the P60's is the radars;
Military oriented Terma Scanter air/surface radar versus the P60's Kelvin Hughes COTS system , but I don't think that would account for more than a couple of million per vessel?

In practice that means the RN vessels can use optical & radar to target the main gun - the P60's have nice optical sensors, but I don't know if the Kelvin Hughes set allows for automatic gun targeting, or if it features other mil attributes like ECCM etc.

From memory - I remember something about the NS opting for Lloyds commercial ship building standards versus Royal Navy going for their own mil specifications - which apparently has an impact on price. But I'll leave that to people who know something about ships to explain, and/or beat me over the head :)

The Terma Scanters would be a nice addition to the P60's eventually - and would probably be a necessary first step if you wanted the option of countermeasures like chaff etc.

The difference in the relative sizes of superstructure looks pretty huge - I guess the P60's have more creature comforts/living space at the expense of a flight deck.

None of the official announcements specify what armament, but wouldn't be surprised with 30mm's. The Peacocks were the only RN ships ever to have OTO Melara, as Vickers (now BAE) were always getting the contract for 4.5in guns (too big for the OPV platform). however OTO are in with a very real chance of fitting their 127mm to the Type 26s due to the Extended Range Guided Munitions it can fire. Will be interesting to see! Also BAE Systems now produce the Bofors 57mm (see USN LCS), so will be very interesting to see what ends up there.

The Thai OPV shows that the hull type can easily take a 76mm.

As for flight deck, no reason why such an area couldn't have been installed on P60s (political will wasn't there in DOD). There's a huge amount of machinery dead space in the P60 class midships in the superstructure, could have been much better utilised...............

pym
13th August 2014, 16:47
As for flight deck, no reason why such an area couldn't have been installed on P60s (political will wasn't there in DOD). There's a huge amount of machinery dead space in the P60 class midships in the superstructure, could have been much better utilised...............

I don't understand this - at least regarding why it involved political will. Leave the space empty, say it needs reinforcement to take a couple of 12M containers. If that happens to mean it could also land a British Merlin or French NH90, so be it - or god forbid an IAC 139 :)

Dogwatch
13th August 2014, 20:14
I don't understand this - at least regarding why it involved political will. Leave the space empty, say it needs reinforcement to take a couple of 12M containers. If that happens to mean it could also land a British Merlin or French NH90, so be it - or god forbid an IAC 139 :)

You mean like this??!!
http://www.seanews.com.tr/images/articles/2010_10/40570/u1_big_photo_home.jpg
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/118413_1.jpg
http://www.fincantieri.it/CMS/Data/prodotti/files/000472_foto1_img1.jpg
http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/printthread.php?t=6905&pp=40&page=35
AW139 landing on Italian OPV Sirio.
Perfectly feasible, if the P60's had come with a flight deck.......

na grohmiti
13th August 2014, 22:29
If only we had an air arm that had (a) ability (b) interest in landing aboard ship and remaining there for a period in excess of 6 hours.

The reason these ships are so costly is if they were not built, the UK Gov would have to pay the same amount in redundancies and mothballing, in order to be able to re-open the yards to build the new frigate.
Why they decided to ignore Babcock completely is a strange choice though. Even all reports suggest that the only yards capable of building these ships is on the Clyde, which is, as we know not the case.

Laners
13th August 2014, 22:36
I don't understand this - at least regarding why it involved political will. Leave the space empty, say it needs reinforcement to take a couple of 12M containers. If that happens to mean it could also land a British Merlin or French NH90, so be it - or god forbid an IAC 139 :)

That day will be the day the Naval Service has it own Air Arm , don't ever imagine that the Air Corps would ever spend an overnight on board a ship never mind 3 to 4 weeks , plus they are Air Corps not Navy , get it , like and oil and water they don't mix .

pym
13th August 2014, 22:54
Again, that's not the point I'm making - if you have clear deck space, you can fit a lot more, or you land an helicopter for resupply or whatever - these new RN vessels wont have hangers either, the time any helicopter spends on board will be very short.

So I don't get the political argument - the ships were built to NS specifications, so.. I assume that all that space is not "wasted" with the superstructure.

Also from memory a few years back there was talk that the IAC contracts changed and if you wanted in, you had to agree to work sea deployments.

ropebag
13th August 2014, 22:59
That day will be the day the Naval Service has it own Air Arm , don't ever imagine that the Air Corps would ever spend an overnight on board a ship never mind 3 to 4 weeks , plus they are Air Corps not Navy , get it , like and oil and water they don't mix .

it just takes leadership, and the threat that if you don't like it you can fcuk off to the dole queue, to change ethos and attitudes - we've done it, firstly with RAF operating from the Carriers, then with AAC operating from HMS Ocean - initially it was a bit 'if i wanted to live on a ship i'd have joined the Navy..', but now its just part of service life, infact its exciting, and the Libya job where the AAC operated their AH-64's from Ocean and did offensive air ops inplace of carrier air was a massive, huge boost for moralé in the AAC.

dead easy, send an email with 'thou shalt..', and invite anyone who doesn't fancy it to submit their resignation by reply... how many applicants do you get for each IAC cadetship?

DeV
13th August 2014, 23:11
Eventually found what I was looking for:

In 2009, the BAe Systems Surface Ships Terms of Business Agreement was signed.
Under that the MOD guaranteed £230 million of shipbuilding work annual, cancelation (which could happen at any time) meant that the MOD would have to pay the closure costs plus compensation.

During SDSR, the estimated cost would have been £ 630 million.

hptmurphy
14th August 2014, 15:45
The inter service operability option is misguided as it reduces the host vessel to nothing other than a pit stop for the air arm. If ships are designed to have their own wing they need to be operated by the naval asset as a extension if the naval need and not of the opeeator such as the AC. Quite rightly the NS are unwilling to invest in flight ops again as a loss to other capital needs to fund the curiosities of the Air Corps.

The UKRN is building two ships to the RAFs whim that wil tie them up with a singular aircrat type for generations that no one can guarantee will even operate as predicted. In tandem with ths they have denied them selves to operate the current type of carrier aircraft available including AWAACs.

Morale of the story..two groupings fighting oner one budget will limit both arms of service in the future. Historically the flying was done by the navy. The NS here coild easily manage the helo and patrol assets of the AC for their own needs. Until the NS hss its own helos crews etc. I don't think we'll see ship capable helos and helo capable ships again.

Dogwatch
15th August 2014, 12:26
Quite rightly the NS are unwilling to invest in flight ops again as a loss to other capital needs to fund the curiosities of the Air Corps.

NS not unwilling to commit, it's DOD who put the kaibosh on any hope of a flight deck on a new class of OPV. All that is required is a flight deck (HIFR at a stretch note S92s don't have HIFR capability), the P31 experiment was too much as the helis were a specific Irish design, the equipment fitout for P31 as per AC requirements was far too high & never fully utilised (ship never had a requirement to be able to change out engines, etc; even though it was equipped to do so.

Laners
15th August 2014, 17:41
NS not unwilling to commit, it's DOD who put the kaibosh on any hope of a flight deck on a new class of OPV. All that is required is a flight deck (HIFR at a stretch note S92s don't have HIFR capability), the P31 experiment was too much as the helis were a specific Irish design, the equipment fitout for P31 as per AC requirements was far too high & never fully utilised (ship never had a requirement to be able to change out engines, etc; even though it was equipped to do so.

So that's what that gantry crane in the hanger was for .

hptmurphy
15th August 2014, 22:59
Helps had Irish spec not design. Sa 365 continues in service as do our own except the end user tried to make it something it could never be. Ironically the reason behind equipping a ship with a helo has long since passed and the role envisaged can now be filled by a UAV. Unless someone comes up with a very credible specific role NS vessels don't need to be helo capable.

hptmurphy
15th August 2014, 23:01
So that's what that gantry crane in the hanger was for .

No it wasn't . It was for storing sail boards and bikes

Turkey
15th August 2014, 23:28
To be honest, the only role I see in any future for us needing helicopters is if we got a sudden epidemic of submarines...

Dogwatch
10th October 2014, 13:47
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bzk2QhoIEAAv6xq.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzlHwNYIEAA4kgG.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzkdJQ5IMAASJZy.jpg

HMS Forth, HMS Medway & HMS Trent
BAE systems commence construction on 3 OPVs.

Same as the vessels sold to Brazil
http://static.navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/First-Brazil-OPV-Ready-for-Ocean-Voyage.jpg

morpheus
10th October 2014, 13:53
even if we dont need helis on vessels, surely it would make sense to have a multi role after deck that COULD be used for medium sized helis eg in disaster relief missions or long range HIFR SAR refuelling with CG but also for other tasks such as UAV launches AND cargo handling of ISO containers?

how much would the extra cost of aviation fuel containers, pumps, and deck strengthening cost?

Herald
10th October 2014, 15:03
even if we dont need helis on vessels, surely it would make sense to have a multi role after deck that COULD be used for medium sized helis eg in disaster relief missions or long range HIFR SAR refuelling with CG but also for other tasks such as UAV launches AND cargo handling of ISO containers?

how much would the extra cost of aviation fuel containers, pumps, and deck strengthening cost?

Didn't someone on here say the new CG choppers can't utilise HIFR?

morpheus
10th October 2014, 15:10
Not me, wouldnt know anything about private sector owned non state assets :8(

hptmurphy
10th October 2014, 15:14
Didn't someone on here say the new CG choppers can't utilise HIFR?

Correct!!!!!

hptmurphy
10th October 2014, 15:14
even if we dont need helis on vessels, surely it would make sense to have a multi role after deck that COULD be used for medium sized helis eg in disaster relief missions or long range HIFR SAR refuelling with CG but also for other tasks such as UAV launches AND cargo handling of ISO containers?

how much would the extra cost of aviation fuel containers, pumps, and deck strengthening cost?


Oh...gawd.......

Herald
10th October 2014, 15:28
Not me, wouldnt know anything about private sector owned non state assets :8(

And.................wouldn't it make sense to know?...................you know, before clogging up all the afterdeck with that sh1t that can't be used by the CG?

morpheus
10th October 2014, 16:44
And.................wouldn't it make sense to know?...................you know, before clogging up all the afterdeck with that sh1t that can't be used by the CG?
Who says that the contract will be renewed in 10 years or that the helis wont have a requirement for it in the future? the ship will last 2 - 3 whitepapers. better to have a capability than to try and retro fit it.

na grohmiti
10th October 2014, 20:54
You have to build a ship around the proposed aircraft. Afterthoughts are a no-no. See HMS Blake, RFA Argus etc...

ropebag
10th October 2014, 21:58
You have to build a ship around the proposed aircraft. Afterthoughts are a no-no. See HMS Blake, RFA Argus etc...

you have to build it around a rough idea, so for example if you built an OPV with the space/weight to take a Merlin/Chinook, you are future-proofing it against pretty much every/any medium lift helicopter that will be built in the next 30 years.

i see the decision to build the new OPV class without a rudimentary/basic helicopter capability as spectacularly short-sighted - these vessels will be in service in 2050, and a lack of a flight deck means no counter-piracy/CT missions for the next 35 years... it means saying 'these are the requirements to do the job right now, and i have decided that they will be exactly the same, and the job will be exactly the same, when the NS's newest officer cadet is pushing for the COS job and when most of the people on this site will be either dead, or drooling into their Horlicks.

as one sorely missed from here used to say, steel is cheap and air is free.

DeV
10th October 2014, 23:15
You have to build a ship around the proposed aircraft. Afterthoughts are a no-no. See HMS Blake, RFA Argus etc...

Never heard of HMS Blake, laid down 1942, commissioned 1961, decommissioned 1979!!!! In fairness, helicopters were just about in service when she was built.

RFA Argus is a converted container ship that has seen operational service all over the world.

Marius
13th October 2014, 21:05
agree. have been saying the same thing elsewhere on the forum. It is bad and inexplicable in professional terms. Whoever is responsible will, as usual, escape scrutiny or consequence while the NS will struggle with this defect-for it is that- for the life of these ships. It is such a pity and it would have taken so little to futureproof these vessels.

na grohmiti
13th October 2014, 21:17
agree. have been saying the same thing elsewhere on the forum. It is bad and inexplicable in professional terms. Whoever is responsible will, as usual, escape scrutiny or consequence while the NS will struggle with this defect-for it is that- for the life of these ships. It is such a pity and it would have taken so little to futureproof these vessels.

Did you ever consider that they are future proofed and the decision was made to have the deck capable of operating UAV and ROV, instead of wasting space on heli ops where no suitable helis are currently in use or proposed?
If you think it takes "little" to add a helideck to a design, you are grossly mistaken.
Keep in mind that there already exists 2 variants of this design equipped with a helipad. Those who know about these things decided the option was unsuited to our needs.

ropebag
13th October 2014, 21:56
Did you ever consider that they are future proofed and the decision was made to have the deck capable of operating UAV and ROV, instead of wasting space on heli ops where no suitable helis are currently in use or proposed?..

so 'future proofed' for 30-odd years - but only insofar as allowing them to operate currently operated/planned systems?

interesting version of 'future proofed'...

i don't think there's anything stopping a vessel with a flight deck operating UAV's or ROV's, but theres definately something stopping a vessel with a flight deck working with helicopters - moreover, i don't think anyone is suggesting welding a flight deck onto the thing halfway through building it, rather dissapointment t choosing a design from the outset that didn't have one...

perhaps the NS aren't thick, but found that politicians and MOF aren't either - if you build ships with flight decks, at some stage some bright spark will ask why you don't fly helicopters from them..?

so, can you educate us - give us 3 reasons why you would not want a flight deck on a patrol vessel?

danno
13th October 2014, 22:11
Having a heli deck (or a heli ) on a NS unit would be a prime example of having the tail wag the dog.

na grohmiti
13th October 2014, 23:05
so, can you educate us - give us 3 reasons why you would not want a flight deck on a patrol vessel?

1. We don't have the experience required. We tried to start from zero before, but once the knowledge went, it was gone for good.
2. We have no military aircraft in the island capable of landing on a naval vessel.
3. We were down this road before, we couldn't justify the need for a helipad, hence there is now a large crane in the corner of what was Eithne's helideck to make some use of the space.
4. 90% of the time, during patrol conditions, it is impossible to carry out heli ops on a vessel of this size. You may have noticed when foreign helicopter equipped naval vessels of all sizes visit, they rarely have their heli aboard. The reason is, the USN/RN/French have already accepted this fact, and send their valuable air assets somewhere they can be useful.
5. A helideck is not just a flat bit of deck. It is fitted with navaids, tie down points, and most importantly a safe place for the required crew to work. If you are not using it for helicopters, you can't use it for much else.

I give you the following clips in my defence.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NJIZTL2ZyEw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xUIKxnS6tQc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The above is in good conditions.
This is normal Western Approaches conditions.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-iOUu4vzQxg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kewT59oALBE?list=UUjfwRSvcaGpInbj888JycaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

morpheus
14th October 2014, 10:10
anyway the etender for the OPVs and EPVs has expired... not sure exactly what this means, but details for the EPVs were to be given at stage 2... assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reached. https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=34789&B=&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders

DeV
14th October 2014, 12:31
The tender for the OPVs became a contract (and the option has been exercised).

Giving that the closing date was over 6 years ago any EPVs would probably have to be tendered for again as the submission (and prices) would be out of date.

If we want more OPVs, the tender woułd probably be put out again

ropebag
14th October 2014, 12:41
1. We don't have the experience required. We tried to start from zero before, but once the knowledge went, it was gone for good.
2. We have no military aircraft in the island capable of landing on a naval vessel.
3. We were down this road before, we couldn't justify the need for a helipad, hence there is now a large crane in the corner of what was Eithne's helideck to make some use of the space.
4. 90% of the time, during patrol conditions, it is impossible to carry out heli ops on a vessel of this size. You may have noticed when foreign helicopter equipped naval vessels of all sizes visit, they rarely have their heli aboard. The reason is, the USN/RN/French have already accepted this fact, and send their valuable air assets somewhere they can be useful.
5. A helideck is not just a flat bit of deck. It is fitted with navaids, tie down points, and most importantly a safe place for the required crew to work. If you are not using it for helicopters, you can't use it for much else....

with respect, you are conflating having a flightdeck with its use in the current EEZ, and only that. i'm talking about the possible need to operate the ships in the Med, or the Baltic, the Arctic, off west Africa or in the Indian Ocean..

i would suggest that future proofing the vessel means equipping it, or allowing it to be equipped in the future, with capabilties you do not currently need, but might do in the service life of the vessel.

i would remind you that these vessels will be in service in 2045/2050 - the equivilant of predicting in 1980 what the defence needs/doctrine/posture of 2015 would be. in 1980 Charlie Haughey was Taoiseach, the PIRA hunger strikes had not yet happened: anyone who had predicted in 1980 than in 35 years Irish troops would have been operating under NATO command in Afghanistan for a decade, or had undertaken EU operations in Chad, that Ireland would be member of NATO PfP, or that Irish troops would be operating under UK command on a mentoring/training mission in Mali, would, i think, have been locked up and put on some very strong medication.

predicting what won't be the situation 20 or 30 years down the line is a fools errand - by building vessels that can't do flight ops for the next 35 years the Irish government has almost certainly shot its successors feet.

hptmurphy
14th October 2014, 18:49
so, can you educate us - give us 3 reasons why you would not want a flight deck on a patrol vessel?


1. We don't have the experience required. We tried to start from zero before, but once the knowledge went, it was gone for good.
2. We have no military aircraft in the island capable of landing on a naval vessel.
3. We were down this road before, we couldn't justify the need for a helipad, hence there is now a large crane in the corner of what was Eithne's helideck to make some use of the space.
4. 90% of the time, during patrol conditions, it is impossible to carry out heli ops on a vessel of this size. You may have noticed when foreign helicopter equipped naval vessels of all sizes visit, they rarely have their heli aboard. The reason is, the USN/RN/French have already accepted this fact, and send their valuable air assets somewhere they can be useful.
5. A helideck is not just a flat bit of deck. It is fitted with navaids, tie down points, and most importantly a safe place for the required crew to work. If you are not using it for helicopters, you can't use it for much else.

Thats 5...stop..you'll confuse them.

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

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

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


predicting what won't be the situation 20 or 30 years down the line is a fools errand - by building vessels that can't do flight ops for the next 35 years the Irish government has almost certainly shot its successors feet.

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

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

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

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

There are many arguements why it should be there, we are telling you the reality of why its not there and what the barriers are.

hptmurphy
14th October 2014, 18:51
assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reache

Correct, may never be reached if building OPVs proves to be cheaper and they are reckoned to be more efficient.

na grohmiti
14th October 2014, 20:55
anyway the etender for the OPVs and EPVs has expired... not sure exactly what this means, but details for the EPVs were to be given at stage 2... assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reached. https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=34789&B=&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders

They were not tenders, they were RFPs. OPV went to stage 2, request for tender. EPV did not. The tender above is for consultants, effectively to delay the decision as long as possible at the time, thanks to that limerick moustachio'd gobshite.

sofa
14th October 2014, 22:52
Thats 5...stop..you'll confuse them.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

There are many arguements why it should be there, we are telling you the reality of why its not there and what the barriers are.

If you change "still Serving" to "Still Flying" I'll give you a like.:biggrin:

expat01
15th October 2014, 06:11
They don't need helipads the same way they don't need ASW or AA suites. Or indeed 76mm guns.
but it's a lot more odd to have a naval ship without a gun, and the gun takes up less room than an unused helipad. If we can ever afford naval air, we can afford new ships for 'em.
ships that could actually be some use if someone fired anything bigger than a 12.5 at them.

hptmurphy
15th October 2014, 14:17
If you change "still Serving" to "Still Flying" I'll give you a like

Given the guy who did the trials for the AW139 has been retired over a year I don't see any deck rated helo pilots still in service, although there may be Dauphin qualified peeps.

But the first FDO is !

DeV
23rd October 2014, 13:52
The EPV was/is to be capable of HIFR (as an option) and to have a flight deck spot for a non-organic 10 metric tonne helo (with no ship borne facilities for launch or recovery)

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?11651-New-Naval-Vessels-Specifications

Dogwatch
1st November 2014, 23:52
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/october/31/141031-hms-severn-readies-for-new-mission-by-training-with-her-sister-hms-tyne

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

Red sky at night, shepherd’s delight.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/20141031ax-2.jpg

hptmurphy
2nd November 2014, 11:53
Taskings previously carried out by destroyers and frigtates now being down graded to OPVs.

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

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

Not good .

Barry
2nd November 2014, 12:14
the new carriers will put even greater strain on an already strapped RN, both man power wise and and funding.....and they will be in service before the aircraft they were supposed to operate will be ready, so there could yet be a rebuild to accept a conventional aircraft.

I thought the RN said they were sticking with the F35B?

ropebag
2nd November 2014, 12:29
i'm umming and arghing about this - on one hand its good that an OPV/RFA task isn't being done by a FF/DD thats sorely needed elsewhere, on the other hand the AP(N) ship is also the first reinforcement ship for the Falklands..

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

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

na grohmiti
2nd November 2014, 13:48
I thought the RN said they were sticking with the F35B?

They are, and best guesses see the first of them arrive in 2018. However given that the USMC order is also delayed, who knows when they will arrive. The USMC got the first of 420 aircraft early last month only. The USMC aircraft must be operational (Equipped with 10-16 aircraft) between July 2015 and December 2015 (or else).

ropebag
2nd November 2014, 14:33
i think at this stage that F-35B will happen, its just a question of when, how compromised it is and how much it costs. not needing F-35 until 2017 or so for the first carrier, 2018/19 to replace Tornado, and 2020 for the second carrier looks like being fortunate.

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

hptmurphy
5th November 2014, 18:05
personally I think the RN have shot them selves in the foot adopting the arrest/launch equipment they have given it willl seriously limit the options for aircraft inoperability. While the USMC may be in trouble regarding procurement of aircraft, the USN or the French are not and both have quite viable aircraft that could have been opertaed in the interim.

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

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

FMP
4th December 2014, 15:27
Whitehall today signed a £348m deal with shipbuilding BAE to provide the Fleet with three new patrol ships.

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

£348m stg equates to €437.67m, which works out to be €146m per ship.......awful lot......... imho

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16383765

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

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

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

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

Apart from her that is.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~navalass2/eithne.jpg

hptmurphy
4th December 2014, 15:40
How did the NS at home miss out on that one?

They didn't. Contract had already been signed for the lead P60.

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


Cannot for the life of me understand the "anti lobby" on here that are so against the use of them or having the ability to use them.

My own opinion is based on my experience of the services that were tasked in the past and the limitations involved....plus I was there for two years watching it not work for a huge variety of reasons.

"
If at first you don't succeed, give up". Sad, but true. It should have been "Fcuked that one up! Right RN, how the fcuk do you do this?" And cracked on.


No so much..more like we can't afford to go down the road of blowing that amount of cash again to get it wrong.The RN don't base helos on 80m vessels either nor do they expect their Patrol vessels to operate helos on routine FP missions.

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


Too much negativity and not enough foresight to make the most of our very limited assets

Au contrere enough experience and foresight to know what can be done better without having to throw a shit load of money at an issue without knowing the definete outcomes.

DeV
4th December 2014, 16:56
personally I think the RN have shot them selves in the foot adopting the arrest/launch equipment they have given it willl seriously limit the options for aircraft inoperability. While the USMC may be in trouble regarding procurement of aircraft, the USN or the French are not and both have quite viable aircraft that could have been opertaed in the interim.

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

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


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


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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16383765

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


Well compared to the OPV specs in the tender the Amazonas Class have:
- a beam too short by 0.5 m
- a draught too shallow by 0.3 m
- too short range by 500 nm

FMP
4th December 2014, 17:29
Is not buying off the shelf the preferred manner of the DF (I know the NS like to do their own thing). Nothing wrong with having your own specs and the 51's and 61's have proven to be fantastic vessels so you totally got that right. But as the Batch 11's were on offer at the time and replacements were badly, badly needed in the fleet, I feel an effort should have been made to acquire them while waiting the 61's to sail out. A huge effort. A costly effort but worth the effort.

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

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

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

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

Most of what were talking about is the past and therefore unchangeable. Except the mistakes made. Those can be learned from and not made again. I guess what those mistakes were will for ever be a topic for discussion. And the arguments for and against as varied as the topics being discussed themselves.

FMP
4th December 2014, 17:34
The RN have forgotten that the carrier is there to carry aircraft, the aircraft aren't there to fly off the carrier!



Well compared to the OPV specs in the tender the Amazonas Class have:
- a beam too short by 0.5 m
- a draught too shallow by 0.3 m
- too short range by 500 nm

And a heli deck ;).

jack nastyface
4th December 2014, 17:50
Taskings previously carried out by destroyers and frigtates now being down graded to OPVs.

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

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

Not good .

The RN have had to get seconded USCG and French Naval Engineers and Mechs in to keep things going.Mad stuff.

jack nastyface
4th December 2014, 17:53
Given the guy who did the trials for the AW139 has been retired over a year I don't see any deck rated helo pilots still in service, although there may be Dauphin qualified peeps.

But the first FDO is !

Isn't 'Bold Sir H' still in the corpse? (Sorry,Corps) :n:)

pym
4th December 2014, 18:37
But as the Batch 11's were on offer at the time and replacements were badly, badly needed in the fleet, I feel an effort should have been made to acquire them while waiting the 60's to sail out. A huge effort. A costly effort but worth the effort.

To be perfectly honest with you - I think you're dreaming if you think the DF could have got the P60's & those BAE vessels in addition.

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

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

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

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

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

Rant aside - I'm firmly in the "have loads of aft space which a helicopter could operate from, in a pinch" camp - but I get the impression that even the mere possibility of a helicopter operating off an Irish Naval ship would give the beancounters aneurysms.

FMP
4th December 2014, 19:07
pym I do agree with you, honest I do, all of it and I am well aware of the issues. All of them financial, but a few more related to "it wont happen to us so why do we need it". The 61's got signed off and ended up costing more or less the same as the 3 x Batch 11's which were on offer for GBP 133 million. But without the aforementioned flat bit of deck. All I'm saying is, a bit of foresight (that we would spend the money a few years later) and a bit of determination to protect our island nation's assets and resources and those that work the sea for a living to the best of our ability. The lack of political will to do that, I can tell you it makes me angry and very frustrated that our forces (all of them) are tied to a millstone of false neutrality, a population that believes "it wont happen to us" and the belief that someone else will sort our problems for us.

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

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

That's all it is pym, its frustration and anger that good people are having to fight tooth and nail for nuts bolts and rivets. Let alone a ship that can operate a 139 on an occasional basis. I know its pie in the sky. But I will fight my corner at the same time ;).

DeV
4th December 2014, 19:51
And instead the NS got the vessels it needed to the specs they wanted (not those of another country whose navies operate in completely different seas to the NS

FMP
4th December 2014, 20:04
And instead the NS got the vessels it needed to the specs they wanted (not those of another country whose navies operate in completely different seas to the NS

Not saying they didn't DeV. Far from it. Said it before the 51 and 61 class are pure class just cant help feeling that if the option were on the table in the first place the NS would say yes please. We will take a heli capable vessel or two.

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

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

River class Batch 11 are also operated by the RN, based on the original River Class which is operated by the RN who operate in much the same waters as the NS. The North Atlantic and South Atlantic and a few other places in between (not that there's actually much in between, less you count the Med and the Caribbean etc) ;).

Herald
4th December 2014, 20:21
pym I do agree with you, honest I do, all of it and I am well aware of the issues. All of them financial, but a few more related to "it wont happen to us so why do we need it". The 61's got signed off and ended up costing more or less the same as the 3 x Batch 11's which were on offer for GBP 133 million. But without the aforementioned flat bit of deck. All I'm saying is, a bit of foresight (that we would spend the money a few years later) and a bit of determination to protect our island nation's assets and resources and those that work the sea for a living to the best of our ability. The lack of political will to do that, I can tell you it makes me angry and very frustrated that our forces (all of them) are tied to a millstone of false neutrality, a population that believes "it wont happen to us" and the belief that someone else will sort our problems for us.

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

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

That's all it is pym, its frustration and anger that good people are having to fight tooth and nail for nuts bolts and rivets. Let alone a ship that can operate a 139 on an occasional basis. I know its pie in the sky. But I will fight my corner at the same time ;).

The Navy got what it wanted, they didn't want Helis. The helis we have aren't suited to Naval operations. The Navy didn't have a budget to buy helis as part of, or separate to, the OPV tender. A Heli deck could have been part of the final EPV tender, it may infact still be.The Navy wanted 3 OPV's to it's specification, It wants 2 EPV's, also to its specification. Buying the 3 P60's and the 3 amazonas would have killed the EPV for sure.

Where is any of this difficult?

Should we buy one of the French Mistral's? It can carry Heli's too, the only difference is the number of zero's after this €10000..........

FMP
4th December 2014, 20:53
Zero difficulty mate. None at all on my side but you seem a bit confused. We are having a discussion about the pros and cons of heli ops capable ships, sort of started when I asked about the Batch 11's. No one ever said "Navy buy helis" there was the mention of maybe a 139 doing a deck landing during a bit of SAR or the ARW deploying from one off shore out of heli range of the shore, some humanitarian mission stuff but that's about it. No navy heli's mentioned at all. Not once did I mention the NS buying helis. Deck capable crews, that's a different story and you don't have to be navy to do that or the heli your flying in. And the 139 is a very capable heli for deck landings, never said naval operations, I do understand the difference. Helis at sea can do a lot more than just kill sub's. Nor did I ever suggest the navy did not get what they wanted, full of admiration for the 51 and 61 class actually, was always dissapointed the option for a third 51 was never taken up. But I am interested as to why the flight deck option is so off the table in some circles.

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

From what you say Herald does that mean the EPV is a no go now anyway? With the 51 class bought, the 61 class bought (sorry just realized my typo from earlier, was referring to 60 and 61 class instead of 51 and 61 class) where does that leave us with the remaining ships nearing the end of their service and up for replacement if that extra three would have killed EPV would not the replacement of a further 3 (Eithne and the peacocks,,,,,sounds like a dodgy 80's band) not do the same? Or are the EPV's part of that replacement? If not whats going to replace those that need replacing?

hptmurphy
4th December 2014, 22:03
In my humble opinion to have a vessel equipped to carry out heli operations

Thats a very negative perspective... think along the lines of the AC have no suitable helos...makes much more sense:rolleyes:

na grohmiti
4th December 2014, 22:07
The Coast guard also have no suitable helos. Indeed I find it hard to think of a scenario where a Helicopter which is not an Irish military helicopter would NEED to land on an Irish Naval vessel which just happened to be in the vicinity.

I genuinely ask that someone provide such a scenario in the current environment.

hptmurphy
4th December 2014, 22:12
I am aware that the RN don't base helis on PV's and I did mention it, but they do operate helis from those decks and that's where you get your new skills from. Courtesy of them! Its a given, its a known, there is no guesswork involved. Decades of doing it off destroyers, frigates and patrol vessels, all that experience at your fingertips. No risk to yourselves. A cost, but no risk. In the same waters as the NS, same conditions and to a degree same tasks. Not just in heli operations but in the vessels operating them. Try before you buy! We don't make enough effort to make use of the efforts of others. Or didn't anyway. And certainly not "them".

We didn't pull the skill set out a box.....we went and saw how people with a similar helo did it, went sent our people to the RN.. christ knows we used to even buy fuel from them.


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



Again a nisnomer to think that we ever did anything by ourselves, The US coastguard were almost twinned with us in developing a vessel of similar size with similar capabilites, they couldn't do certain things with theirs , that we managed.
It wasn't an abject failure, it just wasn't cost effective, the whole method of surveillance changed with computerisation and satellites thus making the helo redundant in role it was supplied for.

Again bear in mind only two of the five supplied were fitted for ship board ops, backfooted straight away.

Now why would the NS want to spend money on making a ship receptive to a non existent helo out of their own budget?

hptmurphy
4th December 2014, 22:16
Let alone a ship that can operate a 139 on an occasional basis

But the Air Corps would have to buy ENOUGH suitable kitted out ones.. to do what?????

FMP
4th December 2014, 22:27
The Coast guard also have no suitable helos. Indeed I find it hard to think of a scenario where a Helicopter which is not an Irish military helicopter would NEED to land on an Irish Naval vessel which just happened to be in the vicinity.

I genuinely ask that someone provide such a scenario in the current environment.

Don't the NS respond to SOS calls anymore, along with the CG and RNLI and any available vessel? That would kinda put an NS vessel and a CG heli in the same area at the same time where it could make use of that bit of deck for a refuel, if of course it had a deck. Are you also saying the CG helis cant land on a suitable sized peice of anything? Surely its that the crews that haven't been trained, and that's fixable.

FMP
4th December 2014, 22:52
But the Air Corps would have to buy ENOUGH suitable kitted out ones.. to do what?????

Define suitable? ASW, Sonar towing? Wheels and a deck qualified crew! AAC Apache, is that a suitable heli? RAF Chinook, is that a suitable heli? One would think not but there you have them bouncing on and off ships all over the RN. Not carrying out navy operations but operating off a navy vessel. There are enough Rigs and Rig support vessels flying heli's all day and night every day and night all over the place. Again not talking ship board navy type sub killing operations. But a ship that can accept a heli on occasion. How hard is that?

Are there not 3 (If memory serves) or thereabouts 139's fitted with winch and flotation kits? Kitted out with FLIR, NVG compatible, weather radar and all that glass cockpit stuff. Can someone serving in AC please give a definitive answer?

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/AW139/Images/AW139_275_14761.jpg

na grohmiti
4th December 2014, 23:57
Don't the NS respond to SOS calls anymore, along with the CG and RNLI and any available vessel? That would kinda put an NS vessel and a CG heli in the same area at the same time where it could make use of that bit of deck for a refuel, if of course it had a deck. Are you also saying the CG helis cant land on a suitable sized peice of anything? Surely its that the crews that haven't been trained, and that's fixable.

Does the CG train to land on moving decks that are just big enough to hold them, Doing so would put the aircraft and crew in unnecessary danger. I don't see it equipped with deck harpoon and I have not seen any other S92 on a ships deck. Have sikorsky approved it for landing on a ships deck? It doesn't appear in any of their promotional literature, The S92 is a huge heli. It may land on helidecks aboard almost stationary oil rigs, or suitably strengthened decks of large cargo ships. The S92 also has very long range, much greater than the S61. But at that super long range, would it be better to task an asset that can refuel in midair, and trains for this regularly? USAF for example?
As for refuelling a heli on the deck of a ship. You want to store aviation fuel on the ship just in case the Coast Guard heli needs to fuel on it? And you need to keep it contamination free too. Ever try using petrol in the lawnmower in spring that has been sitting in a jerrican since you last used the mower the previous autumn?

FMP
5th December 2014, 08:53
Well that would the part of my statement where I said "Surely its that the crews haven't been trained, and that's fixable". A Heli does not need a deck harpoon to land on a deck!! That's too much reading Jane's talk that is, super lynx and all the rest of it. The vast majority of vessels with decks do not come heli handling systems. It new and shiny and all the rage but in use with only the big bad boys with frigates and destroyers. Not fitted to OPV's and the like because most OPV's and especally ones like Batch 11 don't have a hanger so harpoons and handling kit are redundant.

http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/handling/fhsfoerder/

Rig's may be stable ish Rig support vessels are still ships, ships at sea, ships at sea with a deck for helis to land on and S92 does that. Its roughly same size as Merlin if you want to talk size and Batch 11 will take Merlin. Brits do mid air refueling (do you mean HIFR?) too and are a lot closer than the good old US of A. As for storage,,,,,crikey, jerrycans? No wounder our first attempt was such a disaster.

My god is the principle really that hard to grasp. Just about every nation with a shoreline have somehow managed to make it work. Rich civilians with yachts make it work. Oil and gas contractors make it work.

I give up, I really do. A simple question and a discussion about a simple concept that works the world over has degenerated into an argument of outlandish proportions. Hows this for you then. Your right! You now just need to convince everyone.

na grohmiti
5th December 2014, 09:45
The harpoon is redundant... until the heli rolls off the deck. You'll find that helis that land on ships moving decks that are not fitted with such a system also are not fitted with wheeled undercarriage. You'll find any helideck equipped OPV that does not have a harpoon grid on deck has a beartrap instead.


Show me one photo of a S92 landing on the deck of a ship.

Just one.

We'll discuss the merits of that then. Otherwise its like keeping snow chains in the boot of your car all year round.....while you live in the south of france.

FMP
5th December 2014, 12:51
http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/images/newsimage-1-CHC_S-92_Statoil.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-diZLKLetfnc/UjZUzBkNHuI/AAAAAAAAChQ/eZoKoUjfib0/s1600/18DSC04642.jpg

http://distilleryimage0.s3.amazonaws.com/11507b60b1f911e3b9f512dc2048cdbc_8.jpg

http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_first_landing.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/2/2/1716227.jpg

http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/dca/news/politics/article11601330.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/cyclone29nw1.JPG

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/images/business-equipment/maritime-helicopter/orig/maritime-helicopter-7.jpg

What now?

Too big?

Too small?

Wrong shape?

Wrong colour?

Wrong kind of ships?

The pilots are female?

Sea too green?

Sky too blue?

Their using cargo net and not harpoons and all sorts of trickery from the archives of defense international and Jane's monthly?

But then they are using harpoons and all sorts of trickery from the archives of defense international and Jane's monthly?

Their civilian and not applicable?

Their navy and not applicability?

Like I said in my last post mate, your right!! Honest to god you are! Hands up, I surrender!!

FMP
5th December 2014, 13:09
You'll find that helis that land on ships moving decks that are not fitted with such a system also are not fitted with wheeled undercarriage.

Otherwise its like keeping snow chains in the boot of your car all year round.....while you live in the south of france.

Ahhhhhh now I get it. So that's why all (bar but not limited to USMC Cobra's and Huey's) helis operating off of ships have,,,,,,,,,,wheels. No don't get I'm afraid.

Like the snow chain reference though :biggrin:.

expat01
5th December 2014, 14:58
FMP, thanks for your reasoning. You are however knocking up against an attitude which has been hard-wired into the entire DF since the 1930s. If you can't go the whole hog, don't try at all, along with... If we can't have it, then by God we don't need it and we'll prove the reason why!
We have a tiny air corps and I imagine little appetite within it for acquiring and maintaining the skill of landing on a ship should the need arise. Is the capacity to land a helicopter on a deck to pick up a casualty or drop off a ranger team useful? Hell yes and Ireland should be able to do this in its huge area of responsibility.
We can't. The government don't see it as a priority and the DF will say it's unnecessary until the day they're told they should. Then they'll do it and make it work.

Jetjock
5th December 2014, 15:07
The lack of even a landing facility for a helicopter on Irish OPVs is inexplicable really. It massively limits any potential uproling of the vessels during their 30 year lifespan and limits them to what is in actuality home water EEZ police work. Potential overseas roles beyond anti piracy convoy escort is a non runner. You certainly won't hear an Captain Phillips types threatening Somali boarding parties that the Irish Navy is on the way..at a breakneck 20 knots.

A bad experience 25 years ago will now have implications over 50 years after the experiment failed. Mostly for lack of trying by a spoiled IAC. There were other reasons granted, none however were insurmountable. It's time to move on.

One must ask the question has the Irish taxpayer been given value for money and the answer must surely be in the negative simply by the failure of the specification writers to future proof the vessel by simply adding a flat area to land a helicopter. Not even a hangar, just a landing position.

Regarding non equipped helicopters landing on Naval ships(not even flat tops), British International were recently contracted to ferry personnel between ships during Ex Joint Warrior. In the North Sea. With a bog standard S61. No bells, no whistles. They also regularly do the same in the Falklands. On the River class. That's the ones of similar proportions to the P60 class. Check out what HMS Clyde has been up to of late: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/october/16/1411016-hms-clyde-gets-flying
The RN don't seem to be shy about listing the ships ability to refuel and thereby extend the range of SAR helicopters as an "important" role.

There is simply no Navy ship worldwide of similar proportions being built ANYWHERE without an aviation facility. The mind boggles. The Irish Navy simply does not know better than every other navy on the planet! Any argument to the contrary just doesn't hold water(pun absolutely intended).

It's a bit like the recent Irish penchant for building three quarters of a sports stadium. Most of it is brilliant, it's just a little bit shit at one end.

expat01
5th December 2014, 15:58
If we didn't already have artillery, trying justify the purchase and setting up a whole corps to use it would be a lot harder than this (not now, infantrymen!). I mean, what for, the off chance of needing a few illum rounds from a 120?
And yet...

DeV
5th December 2014, 15:59
The AC generally don't do SAR anymore (if they do it is very limited and inland only)
The EC135 and AW139 (or S92) aren't probably equipped for deck landings in bad weather, which is the time they could be needed)
Is the deck rated for a S92 sized helo (on a 2000 tonne vessel not those in the pics)?
Does the EC135/AW139/S92 have HIFR capability?
How far offshore are they rated for?

What sea state can the helo operate in from these (ie land/take off)

Home water EEZ is the raison d'ete of the NS. Overseas would be a major policy change (the only other type of overseas op would be embargo enforcement).

morpheus
5th December 2014, 16:01
The NS should have its own dedicated maritime air wing anyway. Taking airmen and trying to turn them into part time sailors was never going to work. esp with the operation of the IAC at the time.

expat01
5th December 2014, 16:13
The AC generally don't do SAR anymore (if they do it is very limited and inland only)
The EC135 and AW139 (or S92) aren't probably equipped for deck landings in bad weather, which is the time they could be needed)
Is the deck rated for a S92 sized helo (on a 2000 tonne vessel not those in the pics)?
Does the EC135/AW139/S92 have HIFR capability?
How far offshore are they rated for?

What sea state can the helo operate in from these (ie land/take off)


Home water EEZ is the raison d'ete of the NS. Overseas would be a major policy change (the only other type of overseas op would be embargo enforcement).

What exactly is the purpose of the main armament on NS vessels in home waters? Remove that - which will never be needed against a yacht and would never even know what destroyed it if a warship were involved - and there's plenty of space. Actually, given what we actually do in home waters, what do we need beyond a fast, seaworthy vessel with room for RIBs?

It's a poor argument and taken logically, there is no justification for the Defence Forces at all.

Brian McGrath
5th December 2014, 16:25
What ever about the pros and cons of this I have to say that the Naval version of the S92 looks the business.

expat01
5th December 2014, 16:40
How can you un-dislike? It was a knee-jerk response and I never see it as constructive.

pym
5th December 2014, 16:54
What ever about the pros and cons of this I have to say that the Naval version of the S92 looks the business.

Well it has been an absolute nightmare for the Canadians.

As regards helicopters for the NS - I don't see the need right now, I don't see how it could be financed right now and I don't see the logic in carting around aviation fuel on the offchance someone might need to drop in for a top up.

My position as a know nothing landlubber is just - have loads of space on the aft deck. Make it big & strong by design. Use it for loads of TEU's or delivering some Mowags on a resupply, or whatever.

5-10 years hence if carting a helicopter to an AO like Liberia is seen as a requirement, you can do that. Or if a large VTOL UAV is seen as the next step for OPV's - well, it's doable.

In the meantime, it's just some nice space with a lot of possibilities.

DeV
5th December 2014, 18:09
Lads I'm not saying that having such capability is a bad thing but:
- how likely is it to be used?
- how usable is it (eg what sea state)?
- how much € in capital outlay?
- how much € annually to gain and retain competency?

expat01
5th December 2014, 19:44
And in reply, I still say that the same applies to everything we have over a 12.7 and a mowag. I tend to agree that these days helicopter capacity is a basic naval capability, not a nice to have.
It is a soldier's job to prepare to meet any eventuality or that that could conceivably arise. If he can't do so due to lack of resources, he highlights the issue and makes do with what he has. He doesn't pretend issue doesn't exist just because he doesn't have the kit.

hptmurphy
5th December 2014, 20:18
Define suitable

The DH244 and DH 245 variants were suitable as they were specifically built for ship board ops with items that were deemed suitable by both the clients and the users to use them aboard ship.The remainder were not fitted for naval ops.

Theres the suitability deal with. The Air Corps didn't request a naval spec for an machines since so they never had any intention of revisiting the project, given the projected life span of the 139s its never going to happen.

FMP, you have all the arguments why we should and I don't disagree

- if there was a role
- if there was money available
- if the helos were navy owned
- if all the other priorities such has having enough ships and people were met .


As for storage,,,,,crikey, jerrycans? No wounder our first attempt was such a disaster.

Don't know where you got that one from Bud! LE Eithne has quite a sizeable Jet A1 storage tank and we did HIFRs were RAF Sea kings back in 1987..as I did with Dauphins


Well it has been an absolute nightmare for the Canadians.

Just look at the photos supplied and note the size of the vessels plus the flat calm conditions. You can operate helos all day long on pond like conditions...I take it you've never been 200 miles off the west coast of Ireland on a 1900 tonne HPV in January.


I tend to agree that these days helicopter capacity is a basic naval capability, not a nice to have.

No..having ships is a basic capability, helos would be a nice to have !!!

hptmurphy
5th December 2014, 20:24
What ever about the pros and cons of this I have to say that the Naval version of the S92 looks the business.

Looks can be deceiving , and they have a problem in the hover that was not present in the S61N, the larger chord rotor blades give off a bigger down draft and can cause problems at certain heights for winch men.

hptmurphy
5th December 2014, 20:28
We have a tiny air corps and I imagine little appetite within it for acquiring and maintaining the skill of landing on a ship should the need arise. Is the capacity to land a helicopter on a deck to pick up a casualty or drop off a ranger team useful? Hell yes and Ireland should be able to do this in its huge area of responsibility.

You don't have to be able to land to put people aboard a ship!!! And anyway there's nothing there that the Naval Boarding teams can't do using RHIBs instead of Helos.

hptmurphy
5th December 2014, 20:36
There were other reasons granted, none however were insurmountable. It's time to move on.

Actually they were insurmountable, you can't sustain a small helo on a relatively small ship for long periods of time when the owner of the helo wants it else where, and its not economically viable to leave it on a ship!

Both parties must commit to making it work, the Government didn't want the £30 million ship cruising up and down the east coast waiting for the AC to dictate when it would call, and the NS had lost the sweepers and needed hulls in the water off the south and west coasts instead of dicking around while the AC made up their minds on the lunch menu.

ropebag
5th December 2014, 20:43
The AC generally don't do SAR anymore (if they do it is very limited and inland only)
The EC135 and AW139 (or S92) aren't probably equipped for deck landings in bad weather, which is the time they could be needed)
Is the deck rated for a S92 sized helo (on a 2000 tonne vessel not those in the pics)?
Does the EC135/AW139/S92 have HIFR capability?
How far offshore are they rated for?...

i'm not having a go at you personally, but there's some ****ing intellectual poverty going on with this obsession about what this or that helicopter/crew can do right now.

lets get this straight: the S92 might be out of service with the IRCG by 2020, these ships will be in service until 2045 at least. the AW139's will be lucky to be in service with the AC in 2030.

think a bit ****ing harder.

HMS Clyde, and the three follow-on boats, have flight decks rated for Merlin/AW101 at 14,000kg. 2,000kg heavier than an S92..

hptmurphy
5th December 2014, 21:14
HMS Clyde, and the three follow-on boats

Ships..not boats! :-D

Jetjock
5th December 2014, 21:20
Actually they were insurmountable, you can't sustain a small helo on a relatively small ship for long periods of time when the owner of the helo wants it else where, and its not economically viable to leave it on a ship!
.

Actually HPT I hate to disagree but I would call that problem easily surmountable simply by requiring those helicopters to be dedicated NS assets and those who operate them to follow a f**king order! Its the military ffs!

In any case with all due respect that is a 25 year old issue. Hiding behind January sea conditions as an excuse for not future proofing a vessel is missing the point every vessel from 85m to 150m will have a days when the aircraft stays in the hangar. But I can guarantee you the flying days will still outnumber the non flying at the end of the year.

Forget for a second that that the new vessel will have no greater a footprint of influence than the 35 year old ship it replaces, in what is a huge ocean. Forget that a helicopter extends that sphere by 150nn in all directions. Because an embarked heli would always have been a pipe dream. A hangar even would have been unrealistic and semi permanently empty. But a helideck as a minimum is a must in 2014. You can still load TEU's. You can still load a few Mowags. You have an even better space for UAV ops. You lose no capability while adding so much.

It is hugely regrettable that such short sightedness exists.

hptmurphy
5th December 2014, 22:05
7872

Just in case ...:n:)https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7Jy4b9GcIlI/VIIekISYuVI/AAAAAAAAx8U/lDgQlh1yrPY/s640/Seaking%2520Fueling%2520from%2520Eithne.jpg

na grohmiti
5th December 2014, 22:39
Actually HPT I hate to disagree but I would call that problem easily surmountable simply by requiring those helicopters to be dedicated NS assets and those who operate them to follow a f**king order! Its the military ffs!

In any case with all due respect that is a 25 year old issue. Hiding behind January sea conditions as an excuse for not future proofing a vessel is missing the point every vessel from 85m to 150m will have a days when the aircraft stays in the hangar. But I can guarantee you the flying days will still outnumber the non flying at the end of the year.

Forget for a second that that the new vessel will have no greater a footprint of influence than the 35 year old ship it replaces, in what is a huge ocean. Forget that a helicopter extends that sphere by 150nn in all directions. Because an embarked heli would always have been a pipe dream. A hangar even would have been unrealistic and semi permanently empty. But a helideck as a minimum is a must in 2014. You can still load TEU's. You can still load a few Mowags. You have an even better space for UAV ops. You lose no capability while adding so much.

It is hugely regrettable that such short sightedness exists.

This was always the ideal option. The NS needs its own dedicated aircraft, with its own dedicated pilots. Utilising the Naas road flying club was never going to work. Not while Charlie Charvet needed the helis as his means of personal transport.
The experiment needs to be tried again, with new rules..
But.

One thing which was accepted in 1983 was that to make an opv heli compatible, you need to do more than just stick a bit of flat deck on the back. You can, but most of the time (when you need it) you won't be able to land anything on it. Better off to do it properly, rather than as an afterthought. This is the basic configuration.
http://www.witherbyseamanship.com/media/Page22AreaPlan.png/
(D is the overall length of a visiting heli with rotors turning. In the case of an S92 this is just over 20m.)
The eagle eyed among you will notice that none of the batch 1 Rivers had helidecks, even though they had an open deck area big enough to land a heli.
Which is why the EPV has been planned with a helideck (to take a 15t heli). Put a helideck on a current design of P60 and you will have major issues with turbulence. See this diagram below to understand what I mean.
So the solution is remove much of the structure as possible. So you lose the space where the ribs are stored, the wet room for the boarding teams put on the drysuits, the QM lobby, the Gym, the Sat Domes, the Wardroom, the Emergency Generators. So you move them somewhere else. Probably by adding another upper deck. They have done so on an earlier variant of the original design. They only operated an Alouette 3 off it at the end.
http://products.damen.com/~/media/Products/Images/Clusters%20groups/High%20Speed%20Crafts/Service%20and%20nnovation/Computational_Fluid_Dynamics.ashx
http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/Common/Images/14%2012%2005%20Port%20Louis%20Maurius%20Coast%20Gu ard%20Valiant%20428.jpg


In summary, if you are doing it, do it properly. Have Dedicated Naval Helis, with dedicated crew, who train regularly with the aircraft of other navies to ensure best practice. (Plenty of neutrals we could deal with, don't have to go the RN USN route). I'm all for having a naval vessel with a helideck, but not if it is just a bit of flat space with the letter "H" painted on it.

FMP
5th December 2014, 23:16
The eagle eyed among you will notice that none of the batch 1 Rivers had helidecks, even though they had an open deck area big enough to land a heli.

Do you mean none of the River Class Batch 1's had a helideck like this?

HMS Clyde P257 Batch 1 River Class.

http://cdn2.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/8/3/7/1826738.jpg

na grohmiti
5th December 2014, 23:24
http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/images/newsimage-1-CHC_S-92_Statoil.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-diZLKLetfnc/UjZUzBkNHuI/AAAAAAAAChQ/eZoKoUjfib0/s1600/18DSC04642.jpg

http://distilleryimage0.s3.amazonaws.com/11507b60b1f911e3b9f512dc2048cdbc_8.jpg

http://jproc.ca/rrp/rrp3/ch148_first_landing.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/2/2/1716227.jpg

http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/dca/news/politics/article11601330.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/cyclone29nw1.JPG

http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/images/business-equipment/maritime-helicopter/orig/maritime-helicopter-7.jpg

What now?

Too big?

Too small?

Wrong shape?

Wrong colour?

Wrong kind of ships?

The pilots are female?

Sea too green?

Sky too blue?

Their using cargo net and not harpoons and all sorts of trickery from the archives of defense international and Jane's monthly?

But then they are using harpoons and all sorts of trickery from the archives of defense international and Jane's monthly?

Their civilian and not applicable?

Their navy and not applicability?

Like I said in my last post mate, your right!! Honest to god you are! Hands up, I surrender!!


I don't see any S92 landed on the deck of a ship there. I see lots of them hovering over decks, one refuelling while doing so. A few to be fair landed on platforms high above the bow area of the ship. Nice, but not practical on a naval vessel fitted with a 76mm fun underneath...
Nice to see the folded CH148 on the Canadian ship. Had not seen it before. Why are the crew wearing bio suits? Is it that toxic?

Why are you so cranky?

na grohmiti
5th December 2014, 23:26
Do you mean none of the River Class Batch 1's had a helideck like this?

HMS Clyde P257 Batch 1 River Class.

http://cdn2.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/8/3/7/1826738.jpg

Clyde subgroup is batch 2. Built 3 years after batch 1.

Jetjock
5th December 2014, 23:28
Do you mean none of the River Class Batch 1's had a helideck like this?

HMS Clyde P257 Batch 1 River Class.

http://cdn2.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/8/3/7/1826738.jpg

The three pre Clyde vessels have no helideck. Clyde was a further development of the design.

FMP
5th December 2014, 23:29
Modified with helideck and stretched slightly (2 meters, the bit of the heli deck that sticks over the stern) for operations in the South Atlantic. Falklands and all that. But still River Class Batch 1.

In fact if you really want to be correct with the "subgroup" title its the Batch 11's. Which are referred to as the Forth subgroup. Forth as in the river that is, and not my keyboard mashing for fourth.

FMP
5th December 2014, 23:37
I don't see any S92 landed on the deck of a ship there. I see lots of them hovering over decks, one refuelling while doing so. A few to be fair landed on platforms high above the bow area of the ship. Nice, but not practical on a naval vessel fitted with a 76mm fun underneath...
Nice to see the folded CH148 on the Canadian ship. Had not seen it before. Why are the crew wearing bio suits? Is it that toxic?

Why are you so cranky?

Mate you crack me up, honest you do. I do chuckle sometimes till my sides hurt :biggrin:.

One of your many arguments was, in a nutshell, has Sikorsky cleared S 92 to land on ships decks and to show you a picture. Call it what you will, heli pad, heli deck, flight deck, I don't care. Fact of the matter is there are at least two pics of civilian S 92's landed on ships. I don't care how pickey you want to be. There are S 92's operating off ships. Therefore it is clear to see that Sikorsky (or more importantly the governing bodies who actually issue the licence to operate) have cleared S 92 to land on a ships deck and take off and fly over the ocean loaded with pax, cargo, and a crew. Whatever the shape or position or type of construction of that deck.

Not too many Rig Support Vessels, Survey Vessels and Exploration Vessels strut about with 76 mm guns or any other caliber of guns, missiles, rockets and / or muzzle loaders for that matter so in relation to the pics, what in gods name are you on about? What does it matter where the decks / pads are? Civilian S 92's are operating off of ships. Happens every day and every night all round the globe. And the CG S 92's that started all of this are civilian. And yes there is a Navy version of S 92 landed / landing and HIFR as well. Just for the hell of it because I too liked the pics. Add that all up and what do you get? S 92 operating off ships. Long duration, in the case of the Cyclone (Ship has a hanger etc) and short duration in the case of the PB ones (Bounce on and off transferring pax, cargo, take on fuel, do the odd rescue / medevac etc.).

So can S 92 operate off a ship and land on a ships deck?

I think the answer is a very definite,,,,YES!

No matter how you dress it up or down, turbulence an all.

DeV
5th December 2014, 23:38
The Sea State forecast issued by the BBC this evening:

Irish Sea is 4-5
Shannon & Fastnet is 5-6
Rockall & Malin is 5-7

The P61 is designed to operate unrestricted up to SS5, with some reduced performance (all ops) in SS6 and survive SS9.


Clyde can operate its RHIBs up to SS5.

expat01
6th December 2014, 04:56
Jesus Christ. The Irish Defence Force. Our secret defence, as soon as an enemy shi enters our EEZ, their helis become inoperable. Boys, I've seen some convoluted thinking in my time, but the mental gymnastics you are going through to justify not having a helideck in the 21st century should qualify you for spin doctor jobs with Sinn Fein. January is a bad month. There's no need. ( no need for a UAV either, for the same reason. We don't have them now and we survive so there is no need for them ever!) when has there ever been a need for the deck gun? Complete waste of space.

It's starting to look silly.
There is one - and only one - grown -up reason why we don't have helidecks on the new vessels and probably wont on the EPV. The air corps is not fit for the purpose.

FMP
6th December 2014, 12:08
Clyde subgroup is batch 2. Built 3 years after batch 1.

You really need to let Whale Island know about this mate. Their under the impression that their new as yet to be built River Class are Batch 11. Considering their the owner / operators it could be a bit embarrassing if they cant get the titles of their own ships right. Batch 111 would be more appropriate don't you think?

FMP
6th December 2014, 13:18
Speaking of sea states, wind states, UAV's and Helis. What for the sake of argument is the wind state that will ground / deck a Heli? Your average Heli, say basic bog standard Navy Lynx. Now considering that's made of aluminum, some steel, powerful engines, lots of other bits and pieces, fuel etc. Basic weight 3.300 Kg. Max weight of 5.300 Kg. What wind state will ground / deck that? Use AW 139 if you wish.

Compared to the wind state that will ground your average UAV, plastic, carbon fiber, fiber glass, some steel and not hugely powerful engines. Not talking Predator, Global Hawk kinda stuff but clip together ones found on smaller vessels and in use by land based ISTAR units. Or if you have the details of the new Navy ones even better.

Just as a comparison as to which would spend more time decked / grounded and therefore not operable due to wind states. Different bits of kit I know but their both assets for use off ships at sea and I'm curious as to which asset goes back in the box first.

DeV
6th December 2014, 13:23
The NS don't want or need heli decks on OPVs.

Government policy is not to deploy naval assets overseas (apart from resupply and diplomatic missions). If that is to change that is why EPV(s) is required.

The CASAs and the various pieces of technology mean that naval helos aren't required for surveillance (and would require a hanger etc).

The NS is recognised as one of world leaders in RHIB ops. If helos were required for naval boardings (they would be vulnerable and overt. It would require a hanger to operate from if required.

All offshore gas platforms are within reach of land based helos, if required.

The EPV(s) are to have a

na grohmiti
6th December 2014, 14:13
Mate you crack me up, honest you do. I do chuckle sometimes till my sides hurt :biggrin:.

One of your many arguments was, in a nutshell, has Sikorsky cleared S 92 to land on ships decks and to show you a picture. Call it what you will, heli pad, heli deck, flight deck, I don't care. Fact of the matter is there are at least two pics of civilian S 92's landed on ships. I don't care how pickey you want to be. There are S 92's operating off ships. Therefore it is clear to see that Sikorsky (or more importantly the governing bodies who actually issue the licence to operate) have cleared S 92 to land on a ships deck and take off and fly over the ocean loaded with pax, cargo, and a crew. Whatever the shape or position or type of construction of that deck.

Not too many Rig Support Vessels, Survey Vessels and Exploration Vessels strut about with 76 mm guns or any other caliber of guns, missiles, rockets and / or muzzle loaders for that matter so in relation to the pics, what in gods name are you on about? What does it matter where the decks / pads are? Civilian S 92's are operating off of ships. Happens every day and every night all round the globe. And the CG S 92's that started all of this are civilian. And yes there is a Navy version of S 92 landed / landing and HIFR as well. Just for the hell of it because I too liked the pics. Add that all up and what do you get? S 92 operating off ships. Long duration, in the case of the Cyclone (Ship has a hanger etc) and short duration in the case of the PB ones (Bounce on and off transferring pax, cargo, take on fuel, do the odd rescue / medevac etc.).

So can S 92 operate off a ship and land on a ships deck?

I think the answer is a very definite,,,,YES!

No matter how you dress it up or down, turbulence an all.

You fail to see my point if you discount turbulence so quickly. Do you not realise the practical difference between having a heli of any sort land on a platform elevated above all other structures, compared to the main deck of a ship?
Do you not understand the significance of the only photo you have of a helicopter landed on a ships deck is one not yet accepted into production, flown by test pilots?

The CH148 is most likely going to be cancelled, for the very reasons I am outlining here, It cannot land on the deck of a warship safely. For any reason! And it is a heavily modified S92 that is supposed to be doing exactly that and just that!

Before you go off on rant mode again the argument is why do the current batch of OPV not have a helideck.
The answer is they have decided don't need one, there is no practical reason for having one.
To add one for a "just in case" scenario is pointless. Evidence of this is clear. The only current Irish Naval vessel which was fitted with a helideck no longer has one. The Military authorities, who are in constant communication with the Coast Guard, an organisation which operates S92 and has amongst its management numerous former naval officers who are familiar with the concept of Naval Air Ops, decided they could nee no obvious need for it on a ship of this size.
If these people combined made no objection when the helideck on L.E Eithne was removed, and a crane fitted on it, maybe that is all you really need to know about that?
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ka/aviationirl/Dauphin_on_L.E_Eithne.jpg
Before
http://media.central.ie/media/images/z/zzzDefenceForcesBestofYear20134_large.jpg
After.

danno
6th December 2014, 15:35
[QUOTE=DeV;420845]The NS don't want or need heli decks on OPVs.

Government policy is not to deploy naval assets overseas (apart from resupply and diplomatic missions


/QUOTE]

Also needed to qualify watchkeepers.

hptmurphy
6th December 2014, 21:51
Speaking of sea states, wind states, UAV's and Helis. What for the sake of argument is the wind state that will ground / deck a Heli? Your average Heli, say basic bog standard Navy Lynx. Now considering that's made of aluminum, some steel, powerful engines, lots of other bits and pieces, fuel etc. Basic weight 3.300 Kg. Max weight of 5.300 Kg. What wind state will ground / deck that? Use AW 139 if you wish.

Can't quote you the figures for the machines mentioned above and in reality wind speed had very little to with the operability of helos as every one knows ships can turn into wind negating the limiting crosswind component limiting ops else where...but

The biggy is sea state...and while again there is no published sea state its the effect it has on the ship that limits the operability.

In the case of the Eithne aad Dauphins the published 'wave off limit' was 4 degree pitch and 5 degree roll.

might not sound like a lot but the effect was it often kept the heo on the deck as opposed to have them airborne without being able to land
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-G6Xs6a-iMdA/UvUPzwmpPzI/AAAAAAAAx9U/9R3YKeRRUZk/s896/naval%2520service%2520104.jpg

Take a look at the horizon in the picture, and see what about half of the limit looks like.

You can land on ships all day long that are in flat calm waters under test conditions...as Aerospatiale did with the Dauphin in the bay of Biscay in 86

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-koEl_TJHcpQ/UvUPzfTiuhI/AAAAAAAAo88/Yf-1WnI4W1k/s896/naval%2520service%2520102.jpg

Notice that which holds helo in place after landing...which is specific to those suitable for ops!

FMP you make some fine arguements but when it comes to specifics on the subject I think you are just a little out of your depth:neek:

expat01
7th December 2014, 04:57
Sea state 5 seems to be the limit for the helicopters on the New Zealand OPVs.
What about Iceland's OPVs?
Yet we are looking for an EPV that will be able to take a helicopter on the - what, one trip every three or four years it might take to resupply a UN mission?

HPT, Dev, none of this is making even a tiny bit of sense to me. It sounds like excuses.

FMP
7th December 2014, 10:32
Can't quote you the figures for the machines mentioned above and in reality wind speed had very little to with the operability of helos as every one knows ships can turn into wind negating the limiting crosswind component limiting ops else where...but

The biggy is sea state...and while again there is no published sea state its the effect it has on the ship that limits the operability.

In the case of the Eithne aad Dauphins the published 'wave off limit' was 4 degree pitch and 5 degree roll.

might not sound like a lot but the effect was it often kept the heo on the deck as opposed to have them airborne without being able to land
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-G6Xs6a-iMdA/UvUPzwmpPzI/AAAAAAAAx9U/9R3YKeRRUZk/s896/naval%2520service%2520104.jpg

Take a look at the horizon in the picture, and see what about half of the limit looks like.

You can land on ships all day long that are in flat calm waters under test conditions...as Aerospatiale did with the Dauphin in the bay of Biscay in 86

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-koEl_TJHcpQ/UvUPzfTiuhI/AAAAAAAAo88/Yf-1WnI4W1k/s896/naval%2520service%2520102.jpg

Notice that which holds helo in place after landing...which is specific to those suitable for ops!

FMP you make some fine arguements but when it comes to specifics on the subject I think you are just a little out of your depth:neek:

Murph thank you for the comments. However that is not what I asked. I asked by way of doing a comparison, what wind conditions would have to be present before a heli would be decked / grounded verses a UAV being decked / grounded? Their inability to fly. Which asset would have to go back in its box first? Its a simple enough question. A specific enough question. Which asset do you lose first due to wind conditions.

Lick your finger, stick it in the air and "Na, too windy, put it back in the box".

Its in relation to various comments about assets not being available due to the weather. It got me thinking? Surely a UAV asset would be more susceptible to wind conditions compared to an asset like a Heli. Be they land or ship based. The NS does not have ship based helis. That is a fact. It is going to use ship based UAV's for surveillance etc. That is a fact. So in SAR mode it's the CG helis that will be out and about doing their bit and the NS UAV up and about doing its bit. Wind picks up,,,,,which one goes home first? Limitations on kit and therefore operations in various conditions when your putting all the kit / eggs in one basket, that's what I'm thinking about.

Not pitching and rolling Murph because we don't have any ship based helis or ships that can work with Helis so that side of things is irrelevant. For the time being. Until the EPV arrives, god willing.

I am more than aware of sea states and how it effects the thing your trying to land on, fully aware of turning into the wind, understand pitch and roll and have done for 25 odd years. And lots and lots of other things related to land, sea and air operations. An expert, NO! Not even close. Experienced, YES. Done it all, NO. Still at it, YES.

So in the last 24 hours I have been accused of Ranting. Trooling. Being out of my depth. Dismissive. Being crankey. Anything else I have missed? If you don't get my point or understand the question, do the grown up thing and ask me to rephrase / repeat in slow time. Leave the name calling for the playground shall we.

Dogwatch
7th December 2014, 11:00
The NS don't want or need heli decks on OPVs.

Government policy is not to deploy naval assets overseas (apart from resupply and diplomatic missions). If that is to change that is why EPV(s) is required.

The CASAs and the various pieces of technology mean that naval helos aren't required for surveillance (and would require a hanger etc).

The NS is recognised as one of world leaders in RHIB ops. If helos were required for naval boardings (they would be vulnerable and overt. It would require a hanger to operate from if required.

All offshore gas platforms are within reach of land based helos, if required.

The EPV(s) are to have a

Who said the NS don't want helis? The NS wants interoperability and future proofing of hulls for 30 yrs - lack of a flight deck does not future proof the new hulls. Be very clear, the decision not to have a flight deck capability was very much a DOD decision, not an NS or AC one.

The civvies are wanting to minimise cost, they don't give a fiddlers about long term capability. Full stop.

DeV
7th December 2014, 11:11
Iceland's newest OPV doesn't have a helideck.

The difference between having a hanger and just having a helideck is with a hanger the helo can operate as an organic asset of the vessel, with a helideck a helo can merely visit for at most a few hours.

If your doing a resupply trip, a helo may be an advantage for transport goods ashore but you'd need a hanger and a very big flight deck (probably at least 4 times the size). Otherwise it is just more storage space.

A flight deck would be useful if we were looking at say EUNAVFOR (as it would aid RAS, crew rotations, surveillance & response to pirate attacks). But for the later it would need a hanger.

In home waters (including the EEZ) it would be the same.

The reason the EPV requires a helipad is it is a larger more capable vessel (approx 50% longer).

DeV
7th December 2014, 11:15
Who said the NS don't want helis? The NS wants interoperability and future proofing of hulls for 30 yrs - lack of a flight deck does not future proof the new hulls. Be very clear, the decision not to have a flight deck capability was very much a DOD decision, not an NS or AC one.

The civvies are wanting to minimise cost, they don't give a fiddlers about long term capability. Full stop.


Future proof yes which is why they want UAV capability

FMP
7th December 2014, 12:01
The DH244 and DH 245 variants were suitable as they were specifically built for ship board ops with items that were deemed suitable by both the clients and the users to use them aboard ship.The remainder were not fitted for naval ops.

Theres the suitability deal with. The Air Corps didn't request a naval spec for an machines since so they never had any intention of revisiting the project, given the projected life span of the 139s its never going to happen.

FMP, you have all the arguments why we should and I don't disagree

- if there was a role
- if there was money available
- if the helos were navy owned
- if all the other priorities such has having enough ships and people were met .

Don't know where you got that one from Bud! LE Eithne has quite a sizeable Jet A1 storage tank and we did HIFRs were RAF Sea kings back in 1987..as I did with Dauphin

Hay Murph, didn't see this one and again thanks for your comments. I think its just the above ones that were directed at me.

Reference suitability. I understand where your coming from and from the Dauphin perspective they were suitable to operate off P 31. But its relative if you see what I mean. P 31 will never operate helis again so I clearly understand that in her time suitability meant something specific. i.e. harpoon and whatnot.

My question about the circa 3 x 139's with winch and flotation kits (still not confirmed by any AC types) is do they have the basic kit to allow them to operate over sea and carry out basic ship operations? Suitable in the current / future sense.

DeV posted an interesting statement of requirement for the EPV yesterday and in it, it stated :


No organic helicopter will be embarked, however the aft deck should be strengthened to permit the capability of landing a 10 metric tonne helicopter. Recovery and launch requires no ship based equipment or facilities.

So in relation to that, how suitable would they be for basic takeoff / landing / refueling etc etc? (Again someone from AC jump in). The requirements are very, very basic. No specialized kit or modifications required let alone a whole new heli because the ship board kit like harpoons and what not are not going to be fitted (TBC). Navy, or somebody obviously wants that ability, but simplified to the very basics. Kinda my point all along. That basic ability does not or should not require modded or specialised helis (if they can currently do HIFR, bonus but otherwise that's a mod) and it certainly does not need Navy owned helis, it needs deck qualified crews. And if! And if you really do decide that the Navy needs its own helis. Then think about the whole Cessna replacement thing. Don't replace, get a couple of "Suitable" AW 139's.

Army, Navy, AC cooperation. The key is NOT to create little empires while making that happen, keep it simple, were only small. A separate naval air wing consisting of one or two helis? Why? ATO/R submitted like everyone else with operations and emergence's tasking's taking priority all dictated by the chief of the defense staff (Or Eire equivalent).

Things in DPM: Army. Things that sail: Navy. Things that fly: AC. Though if I had my way it would be AAC and therefore only two services. But that's a different thread.

Reference the jerry cans :biggrin:.

That was myself and na grohmiti discussing River Class and CG helis and he made a comment along the lines of, are we just going to just keep a load of jerry cans on deck just in case a CG heli flys by, or words to that effect. My reply, you quoted. All tongue in cheek, from my side anyway, but the humour of it once again was missed.

But no worries, I shall plod along as always laughing at my own jokes that no one else ever gets.

DeV
7th December 2014, 13:46
Not sure how far offshore the AW139s (or EC135s) can operate. Would it be a certification issue?

They would need to be able to locate the vessel (radar/FLIR ?) communicate with it (should be possible with SINCGARS but that is short range), land on it (only on calm seas due to lack of harpoon etc), possibly divert if they can't land (so vessel would have to be within a radius of land) and the ditch (flotation gear, EPRIB etc).

For HIFR, all the above except instead of landing you need access to the aircraft fuel system in flight (it has to be capable of it), at the sliding door and on the winch side.

na grohmiti
7th December 2014, 13:53
Reference the jerry cans :biggrin:.

That was myself and na grohmiti discussing River Class and CG helis and he made a comment along the lines of, are we just going to just keep a load of jerry cans on deck just in case a CG heli flys by, or words to that effect. My reply, you quoted. All tongue in cheek, from my side anyway, but the humour of it once again was missed.

But no worries, I shall plod along as always laughing at my own jokes that no one else ever gets.

I said no such thing.

What I suggested was keeping aviation fuel in a tank indefinitely aboard ship would have the same effect on the fuel as leaving the petrol for your lawnmower in a jerrican over winter, and wondering why the mower won't start when you try to use the same fuel in spring.

You spend too much of your time ranting and not enough actually reading the answers people are going to the trouble to give you.

As for the need or not for harpoons etc. I'm not sure if you actually understand what we are talking about. To allow a heli to land on what will inevitably be a minimum possible size deck you will need some facility to stop said heli sliding off the deck once it does land. There are 2 systems in use aboard naval vessels worldwide. Beartrap or Harpoon. Where a deck is not fitted with either the reason will be it is large enough that (a) it will have to roll a long way before it fell off the deck or (b) it has 4 wheel undercarriage locked so it can only move in a circle as was the case with the Westland Wasp or Whirlwind in the past (c) the landing aircraft is fitted with skids, not wheels.(d) The size of the vessel is such that deck movement will be minimal as would be the case with all offshore oil platforms, whether fixed to the seabed, or semi sub.

Can you understand that?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/tAbm2XDpx9w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Beartrap

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PFvDckP4S0Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Harpoon

FMP
7th December 2014, 13:59
You want to store aviation fuel on the ship just in case the Coast Guard heli needs to fuel on it? And you need to keep it contamination free too. Ever try using petrol in the lawnmower in spring that has been sitting in a jerrican since you last used the mower the previous autumn?

That would have been the "Along the lines of" Or "Words to that effect" part of my statement.

Store fuel.

Just in case.

Jerri cans.

Elements for a joke. If you cant take one. My apologies.

FMP
7th December 2014, 14:06
As for the need or not for harpoons etc. I'm not sure if you actually understand what we are talking about.

I understand perfectly well what were talking about.


No organic helicopter will be embarked, however the aft deck should be strengthened to permit the capability of landing a 10 metric tonne helicopter. Recovery and launch requires no ship based equipment or facilities.

Recovery and launch requires no ship based equipment or facilities.

Not my words mate. Would not harpoon grid and / or bear trap fall under ship based equipment?

FMP
7th December 2014, 14:27
Not sure how far offshore the AW139s (or EC135s) can operate. Would it be a certification issue?

They would need to be able to locate the vessel (radar/FLIR ?) communicate with it (should be possible with SINCGARS but that is short range), land on it (only on calm seas due to lack of harpoon etc), possibly divert if they can't land (so vessel would have to be within a radius of land) and the ditch (flotation gear, EPRIB etc).

For HIFR, all the above except instead of landing you need access to the aircraft fuel system in flight (it has to be capable of it), at the sliding door and on the winch side.

Cheers DeV. Have been asking for some AC type to come back with an answer but as yet no response. Thinking just about the 139's though. Steel on steel never a good idea unless you throw a net over the deck.

FMP
7th December 2014, 14:43
To allow a heli to land on what will inevitably be a minimum possible size deck you will need some facility to stop said heli sliding off the deck once it does land.

Ah sure even in this day and age you cant beat good old chocks and strops, along with a bit of white man magic :-D.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLVQVM0gfPE

na grohmiti
7th December 2014, 17:38
Ah sure even in this day and age you cant beat good old chocks and strops, along with a bit of white man magic :-D.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLVQVM0gfPE

Harpoon is in use there, based on the signals the man with the bats is giving. What do you recon Murph?

na grohmiti
7th December 2014, 17:39
That would have been the "Along the lines of" Or "Words to that effect" part of my statement.

Store fuel.

Just in case.

Jerri cans.

Elements for a joke. If you cant take one. My apologies.

I can take a joke.
There wasn't one.
I can also take an apology. Thank you.

na grohmiti
7th December 2014, 17:43
I understand perfectly well what were talking about.



Recovery and launch requires no ship based equipment or facilities.

Not my words mate. Would not harpoon grid and / or bear trap fall under ship based equipment?

Clearly so the plan is that they expect the heli to land and take off when the ship is tied up at the quayside. Because even the most basic of ship based equipment would be a net on the deck and chocks for the wheels.

FMP
7th December 2014, 18:18
I'm making no such assumptions.

Just working with the facts presented. I'm pretty sure chocks and net when detailing a requirement for a vessel are probably up there with knives forks and spoons for the galley. But bits of kit fitted to the deck during construction, slightly different don't you think.

Again I'm in no way saying that what DeV posted is the end of it. It will be a dated document by the time a seriously look at the EPV comes around and no doubt the requirements will change if it ever gets to tender stage. But, working with what has been presented and looking at kit available (139 for instance) surely to ask questions based on available evidence and not conjecture is the right thing to do. If that's what the NS get, what have we available to work with it?

Best practice would suggest some form of heli handling system would be fitted. However it was not mentioned. I'm only working with the facts and it simply states "Recovery and launch requires no ship based equipment or facilities". Its vague to say the least but that's what it says. I'm not going to presume they meant this or that or not including etc. etc.

FMP
7th December 2014, 18:22
I can take a joke.
There wasn't one.
I can also take an apology. Thank you.

No worries, I have a wayward sense or humour. Not to everyone's taste mind.

FMP
7th December 2014, 18:24
Harpoon is in use there, based on the signals the man with the bats is giving. What do you recon Murph?

That would be the white man magic I was on about ;).

DeV
7th December 2014, 19:03
I'm making no such assumptions.

Just working with the facts presented. I'm pretty sure chocks and net when detailing a requirement for a vessel are probably up there with knives forks and spoons for the galley. But bits of kit fitted to the deck during construction, slightly different don't you think.

Again I'm in no way saying that what DeV posted is the end of it. It will be a dated document by the time a seriously look at the EPV comes around and no doubt the requirements will change if it ever gets to tender stage. But, working with what has been presented and looking at kit available (139 for instance) surely to ask questions based on available evidence and not conjecture is the right thing to do. If that's what the NS get, what have we available to work with it?

Best practice would suggest some form of heli handling system would be fitted. However it was not mentioned. I'm only working with the facts and it simply states "Recovery and launch requires no ship based equipment or facilities". Its vague to say the least but that's what it says. I'm not going to presume they meant this or that or not including etc. etc.

It isn't vague.
Arguably a grid could be fitted (within the requirements) but no current aircraft has the harpoon system.
Beartrap/RAST is definitely out
Landing lights or any kind of guidance system are also out

Most of those can only be used up to SS6 anyway

hptmurphy
8th December 2014, 09:54
what wind conditions would have to be present before a heli would be decked

Read it again, the ships can turn into wind reducing that crosswind component that would effect a helo, you are now looking at a specific wind speed for a specific helo. Its not a ship rating.



And lots and lots of other things related to land, sea and air operation

As are others..including myself both at sea and as a Operations officer at a airport that often handled SAR flights ....

Export no....but have dealt with the specifics being discussed first hand..hence the photos!

hptmurphy
8th December 2014, 10:00
Harpoon is in use there, based on the signals the man with the bats is giving. What do you recon Murph?

Yup.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-iHymsJ9k0N8/UvUPxLQ6_oI/AAAAAAAAx90/2pfoZvCr0Pg/s896/naval%2520service%2520096.jpg
Even with all the ties downs, chocks etc... the harpoon is the primary locking mechanism.

FMP
8th December 2014, 10:06
Yup.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-iHymsJ9k0N8/UvUPxLQ6_oI/AAAAAAAAx90/2pfoZvCr0Pg/s896/naval%2520service%2520096.jpg
Even with all the ties downs, chocks etc... the harpoon is the primary locking mechanism.

White man magic!

FMP
8th December 2014, 10:23
Right re-post time. Its not a difficult one gents so why are we all talking about harpoons and turning into the wind, why do you keep showing me pictures of helis on ships etc. and telling me I don't understand harpoons and bearclaws.

Perhaps a bit of clearing up. Maybe its my bad English.

There are no ships in the NS that can land helis. Correct?

The NS will be using UAV's. Correct?

The AC and the CG have helis. Correct?

There will possibly be joint NS, AC, CG op's in the future. SAR for instance. Correct?

Decked / grounded = not able to fly, or not able to operate. Decked in the UAV's case because it will work of a ship, grounded in the helis case because it will work off land. However I personaly use the phrase "Decked" in all dealings with aircraft so hope it does not cause a bit of confusion ;).


Murph thank you for the comments. However that is not what I asked. I asked by way of doing a comparison, what wind conditions would have to be present before a heli would be decked / grounded verses a UAV being decked / grounded? Their inability to fly. Which asset would have to go back in its box first? Its a simple enough question. A specific enough question. Which asset do you lose first due to wind conditions.

Lick your finger, stick it in the air and "Na, too windy, put it back in the box".

Its in relation to various comments about assets not being available due to the weather. It got me thinking? Surely a UAV asset would be more susceptible to wind conditions compared to an asset like a Heli. Be they land or ship based. The NS does not have ship based helis. That is a fact. It is going to use ship based UAV's for surveillance etc. That is a fact. So in SAR mode it's the CG helis that will be out and about doing their bit and the NS UAV up and about doing its bit. Wind picks up,,,,,which one goes home first? Limitations on kit and therefore operations in various conditions when your putting all the kit / eggs in one basket, that's what I'm thinking about.

Not pitching and rolling Murph because we don't have any ship based helis or ships that can work with Helis so that side of things is irrelevant. For the time being. Until the EPV arrives, god willing.

I am more than aware of sea states and how it effects the thing your trying to land on, fully aware of turning into the wind, understand pitch and roll and have done for 25 odd years. And lots and lots of other things related to land, sea and air operations. An expert, NO! Not even close. Experienced, YES. Done it all, NO. Still at it, YES.

So in the last 24 hours I have been accused of Ranting. Trooling. Being out of my depth. Dismissive. Being crankey. Anything else I have missed? If you don't get my point or understand the question, do the grown up thing and ask me to rephrase / repeat in slow time. Leave the name calling for the playground shall we.

hptmurphy
8th December 2014, 10:27
White man magic!

Blue man magic......Deck crew wore blue vest with blue helmets
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Xb_axB7YLw0/VFebv6oipOI/AAAAAAAAu34/I1seFWl8v6Q/s912/HELI-DECK%2520CREW.jpg

White man does the bats....White overalls/yellow vest with yellow helmet( Red HH suit worn in case it went pear shaped and someone went over the side

Red man does the fuel! Red vest with Red Helmet

Guys in red HH suits they drove the boat that carried the diver that pulled the crew from the helo when it hit the water.

hptmurphy
8th December 2014, 10:36
why do you keep showing me pictures of helis on ships etc

One picture says a thousand words.

Anyway I'm letting this one go enough has been said, it ain't going to happen with Aw139s or P60s.....

FMP
8th December 2014, 10:38
Rainbow men magic would probably be more appropriate so ;).

Too much time in Africa, it's all white man magic :-D.

FMP
8th December 2014, 10:45
One picture says a thousand words.

Anyway I'm letting this one go enough has been said, it ain't going to happen with Aw139s or P60s.....

I agree with you Murph. It wont. And I don't want it too. 51's and 61's are PERFECT the way they are, maybe with the EPV things will change but thats what if's and maybe's.

But that's not what I'm asking!!! Its the relationship between high winds, UAV's and Helis. UAV's that will operate off NS vessels and the supporting Helis (AC / CG) that will work off land. Just the UAV's if it makes life easier, forget the helis. What sort of wind state will will deck / ground the UAV? At what stage does it become U/S?

hptmurphy
8th December 2014, 11:35
What sort of wind state will will deck / ground the UAV? At what stage does it become U/S?

Again it will be specific to the model used...and I reckon thats not going to be published for OPSEC reasons.

DeV
8th December 2014, 11:55
Blue man magic......Deck crew wore blue vest with blue helmets
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Xb_axB7YLw0/VFebv6oipOI/AAAAAAAAu34/I1seFWl8v6Q/s912/HELI-DECK%2520CREW.jpg

White man does the bats....White overalls/yellow vest with yellow helmet( Red HH suit worn in case it went pear shaped and someone went over the side

Red man does the fuel! Red vest with Red Helmet

Guys in red HH suits they drove the boat that carried the diver that pulled the crew from the helo when it hit the water.
Not forgetting the Silverman to save the ship (or was he on the flight deck to pull the flight crew out?

jack nastyface
8th December 2014, 14:05
Blue man magic......Deck crew wore blue vest with blue helmets
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Xb_axB7YLw0/VFebv6oipOI/AAAAAAAAu34/I1seFWl8v6Q/s912/HELI-DECK%2520CREW.jpg

White man does the bats....White overalls/yellow vest with yellow helmet( Red HH suit worn in case it went pear shaped and someone went over the side

Red man does the fuel! Red vest with Red Helmet

Guys in red HH suits they drove the boat that carried the diver that pulled the crew from the helo when it hit the water.

Bit lumpy that day Murph. No flying, Bold Sir H getting sick in the wardroom...:neek:

hptmurphy
9th December 2014, 14:14
Not forgetting the Silverman to save the ship (or was he on the flight deck to pull the flight crew out

Bit of anomaly in that one, at the time I was taught when I wore the suit, we got to pull the crew out, but the doctrine was if the helo caught fire use the monitors to knock it over the side and prevent damage to the ship...often wonder were the AC aware of our intentions?

In the one incident I was involved in the Aircrafts own extinguishers had suppressed the fire before I got to dump 20kgs of dry powder into the engine involved, bet the engineers were well happy about that.

My latter training in the CAA fire school taught that 'snatch' rescues using silvers suits very verboten ....and were strictly used by military only.

I reckon the helo was going over the side only because the rescue divers wanted the practise...which brings me nicely to those people who qualified with the RN, dropping from Helos etc, a member here being one....cue Damo!!!!

DeV
9th December 2014, 16:24
In fairness, the knocking it over the side thing makes sense 4 -v- up to 85

Dogwatch
18th January 2015, 12:08
http://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150115-HMS-Severn-in-Turks-and-Caicos-1.jpg

The Royal Navy patrol ship HMS Severn has visited the Turks and Caicos to strengthen bonds with the Caribbean Islands.

Severn, currently deployed in the region, arrived off Providenciales where her Commanding Officer Lieutenant Commander Steven Banfield met with local authorities and toured the Providenciales coastal radar station.

The River Class Offshore Patrol ship then travelled on to Grand Turk, where she embarked the Acting Governor Mrs Anya Williams; the Premier Doctor Rufus Ewing and a number of other officials for lunch at sea.

At the same time the ship also conducted a joint training exercise with the T&C Police Force (Marine) Division that simulated the process of identifying and investigating a vessel fishing illegally.

Lieutenant Ollie Hazeldine, Severn’s Tactical Fisheries Officer who helped coordinate the exercise said: “Working with the Turks and Caicos Police (Marine) department and DEMA was an informative and valuable exercise for all parties.

The Portsmouth based, and Newport affiliated, River Class Offshore Patrol Vessel has deployed to the Caribbean on Atlantic Patrol Tasking (North) duties, providing reassurance to British Overseas Territories and dependencies, whilst also being prepared to conduct disaster relief assistance.

http://navaltoday.com/2015/01/15/royal-navy-ship-pays-visit-to-turks-and-caicos/

Dogwatch
6th July 2015, 23:42
7/6/2015

HMS SEVERN has ended her eight month deployment to the Caribbean on an Atlantic Tasking Patrol (North) mission.

Before departing Barbados recently, Captain Lieutenant Commander Steve Banfield revealed that the British Warship visited 20 countries – making 28 port visits.

He explained to members of the media that the over 234 day period in the Caribbean provided reassurance that Her Majesty’s Government is engaged in the region.

During that time, counter - narcotic operations were conducted though the central and eastern Caribbean, working alongside a number of maritime enforcement agencies, as well as training an estimated 600 members of such agencies.

“We recently completed Exercise Trade Winds 2015 with 14 countries centred on disaster relief, and countering transnational crime at sea. Everywhere we visited we conducted training with the local coast guards – quite a lot with Barbados’ Coast Guard, hosting senior Engineering ratings and Officers on board to discuss engineering management practices.”

“The people who come on board learn from us about how the Royal Navy operates at sea. However, I also learn from them because the Caribbean is a region which at first I was not very familiar with. Having spent time with the region’s coast guards I learned how things work in the Caribbean, therefore when I am out doing counter narcotics operations I can determine when something doesn’t look right because it is not what normal behaviour is,” he pointed out.

Captain Banfield took the opportunity to commend the efforts of the Regional Security System (RSS), expressing that he was impressed with the level of interaction between all the islands.

“I have been massively impressed with how joined up the efforts are at sea in terms of keeping everybody safe, but also the counter narcotics and sharing of intelligence – a lot of it based around the Regional Security System,” he observed.

“A lot of narcotics, especially in the eastern Caribbean are being intercepted at the moment… I went in their new aircraft recently and there is excellent equipment on board; a real asset. Also they were up spotting for us while we are looking for drug runners or illegal fisherman.”
The Captain further revealed that HMS SEVERN will have steamed over 30,000 nautical miles by the time she returns to the United Kingdom, and held 91 official functions on board including capability demonstrations, lunches and tours. It is estimated that over 4,000 people would have visited the ship during the deployment.

While on its final visit to Barbados, the Ship continued to have visitors, including 11 children from the Irving Wilson School, one of the British High Commission’s charitable benefactors on the island.

http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=44401

https://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/HMS-Severn-Sails-to-the-Caribbean.jpg