EPV for naval service

[Rhodes]

It'll be ludicrous to even go to tender for any new ship. It's already been warned that the P51 will be taken out of service this year due to the retention crisis, P52 next year and the two new P70s will be tied up once delivered.

[batterysgt]

Tying up those ships won't happen. DoD has a plan, a cunning plan and will be revealed at the right time.

[na grohmiti]

Thanks Dev. I see your point. I’m not saying that the ability to transport a mech inf company overseas is without value. On the contrary it would be great to have this capability but you have to ask is that capability MORE important than sonar ?

Would you prefer our patrol vessels to have air search radar and limited defence capabilities?

Finally can u see the triple lock being removed? (I can’t) and until that’s gone we won’t be participating in any PSO operations (robust or otherwise) as there will be no UN resolution. Which means we can only send 12 personal or less.

This plan didn't happen overnight. There is at least 15 years of discussion among the 3 arms of the Defence Forces deciding what they want from this ship and why.
You may have noticed we live on an Island. We like to participate in overseas missions with the UN etc, however we have no means to get anything more than a handful of lightly equipped soldiers off the island independently. This had to change, particularly given the fact that one of our Firing ranges and training areas is located on an island...
Tes all the other things are important too, but this is first on the list. Even when it comes to upgrading our own equipment, would it be better for example for an Irish Naval Vessel to rock up to Rostock or wherever to collect said piece of military equipment, and bring it home securely, rather than hoping it doesn't fall off a containership in a storm or damaged during transit?
Everyone else in the EU is capable of moving their heavy military equipment around the EU by road and rail. We do not have that luxury.
The design of vessel opens up a whole range of other purposes the State is available to do such as HADR.

Once Russia is ejected from the UNSC (there are questions as to their legitimacy, the original seat being held by the USSR, which Russia is a fraction of) the Triple Lock will no longer be a stumbling block.

[Flamingo]

One word on the Triple Lock - China

[Sparky42]

I would be highly doubtful about any UNSC reforms, none of the permanent members would really back anything major, even over a technicality like how Russia got the USSR seat. The U.K. and France aren’t going to want nations like India or Brazil asking why they have seats based on Post WW2 global standings compared to now, China isn’t going to want anyone getting ideas about removing them (or lose what is likely to be an easy backup in Russia now).

Far more sensible and easy for us to get our heads out of arses and throw the Triple Lock in the bin where it should have always been.

[Sarsfield]

Two decades of dithering ,sorry research into the green blue ship with nothing to show apart from an article in An Cosantoir which included comments from the now former GOC Rear Admiral Mellet ! Firstly, we are not the size of the French nor the Italian navies , so surely the Depts of Finance and Defence can pay a realistic salary to the dedicated personnel of our Navy which not only retains staff but motivates and encourages them. Secondly, with the real and significant threats to our economic future through attacks on cables and pipelines, I would recommend that instead of an MRV , that we purchase the Gowind 3300 or Sigma 10514 which can operate with crews of around 90 and which with proper naval combat systems allow us to offer a credible deterrent/ defence of our waters. IMHO to grant the request for two dedicated MCMV which the Navy have been asking for since the demand for Tripartite in the ‘80s would demonstrate our appreciation to our European Union nations for their steadfast support since Brexit. Two of the new French Dutch Belgian City Class are exactly what the Navy needs and would clearly demonstrate our nation’s’ determination to take responsibility for the said cables and pipelines.

[na grohmiti]

Two decades of dithering ,sorry research into the green blue ship with nothing to show apart from an article in An Cosantoir which included comments from the now former GOC Rear Admiral Mellet ! Firstly, we are not the size of the French nor the Italian navies , so surely the Depts of Finance and Defence can pay a realistic salary to the dedicated personnel of our Navy which not only retains staff but motivates and encourages them. Secondly, with the real and significant threats to our economic future through attacks on cables and pipelines, I would recommend that instead of an MRV , that we purchase the Gowind 3300 or Sigma 10514 which can operate with crews of around 90 and which with proper naval combat systems allow us to offer a credible deterrent/ defence of our waters. IMHO to grant the request for two dedicated MCMV which the Navy have been asking for since the demand for Tripartite in the ‘80s would demonstrate our appreciation to our European Union nations for their steadfast support since Brexit. Two of the new French Dutch Belgian City Class are exactly what the Navy needs and would clearly demonstrate our nation’s’ determination to take responsibility for the said cables and pipelines.

I'm sorry,
Who are you to determine what the navy "Needs"?

[Banner]

Eh aren’t people allowed to express opinions here? Who are you “an grohmiti” to question the right to free speech? Surely he has as much right to express an opinion on what the Navy needs as you do!

[na grohmiti]

Eh aren’t people allowed to express opinions here? Who are you “an grohmiti” to question the right to free speech? Surely he has as much right to express an opinion on what the Navy needs as you do!

They are and I'm entitled to ask them why they feel their opinion is more worthy than the people in the ACTUAL NAVAL SERVICE who have been working through this program since 2008.
Or people in the DoD who managed to keep this in the Program for Government.
And where is the idea that the Naval Service looked for tripartite coming from.
And while I'm at it who are you who has been lurking here since 2005, only to suddenly become a free speech guardian for another lurker?

[Anzac]

What has never really been defined or that I never got the memo is what kind of sealift tasking is going to be the mission subset of the proposed MRV. Is is to be a strategic sealift orientated vessel or a tactical sealift orientated vessel?

Strategic sealift would be the delivery of heavy equipment from Ireland to an assembly area, usually a fixed port, where vehicles and equipment are married up with personnel, who are most likely to have been flown into the area of operations. With Ireland now getting dedicated air mobility asset to transport personnel needs to now be factored in. That said like in the case of the Canterbury a company group sized contingent can be moved into a theatre staging point from the ship. Tactical sealift on the other hand is the delivery of equipment and personnel into an operational area; and tactical sealift ships are designed to operate in areas without formal port facilities. Essentially this is LPD / LHD type of vessel.

Sarsfield raises an interesting point and has got me thinking how would I approach this solution. There is some detail to cover so this will be quite a lengthy post.

First up we need to recognise that Ireland has new geo-strategic concerns whereby threats could emerge on its back doorstep. Threats that have significant economic disruptor considerations due to its electronic lines of communications, not just to Ireland but in fact the EU and the what also must be factored in - the US-Canada on the other side of the Atlantic in which it links to. Thus his suggestion that subsurface capabilities for detection and deterrence are required has merit. However there is still a need to get equipment and other material from Ireland to support troops deployed abroad and sealift has long been considered a cornerstone capability that Ireland requires.

In my view the reality is that Ireland must do both. It is not an either or. It has to generate a subsurface capability which includes MCM and at least have a strategic sealift capability to get the bulk of its equipment and vehicles into theatre. The issue though is that any future fleet will be shaped by the realities of manpower and budget. The Irish Navy will have to do a number of things within the realms of a nine vessel Navy and LOA2. With the recent acquisition of the four 90m OPV's and the 55m Lake Class the foundation is there for a very capable EEZ patrol fleet well into the future.

The replacement of Eithne as we know is overdue but also Róisín and Niamh post refit are now heading into their eventual end days though a few years off yet. It is these three vessels which will have to carry the burden of the new roles that need to be assigned in terms of subsea warfare and sealift (strategic sealift bigger priority than tactical in my view as I sincerely don't think that Ireland will wish to go into the amphibious assault business anytime soon), but also additional EEZ patrol capability to reinforce the existing patrol fleet as well as potentially the ability to conduct long range patrols to contribute in anti-piracy operations, merchant ship escort or other roles akin to a surface combatant.

Laying all that out it seems to be (as we have discussed in the past) that an updated Absalon design purposed to its original Flexship role of being able to conduct strategic sealift, long range patrols and subsurface warfare is still the most cogent way forward. Moreover it is likely that Babcock and OMT through the Type 32 design work under consideration for the RN (that will focus on the ability to deploy subsurface systems including MCM remotes and support tenders) would be able to put together a sub-class of three vessels based on an evolved Absalon design to replace Eithne, Róisín and Niamh would pretty much cover all the bases. It would give the small fleet an inherent flexibility and would mean noting the rule of threes, that for example one ship could be tasked with subsurface warfare and deterrence patrols in the wider EEZ and the other available ship available for taskings to support say anti-piracy missions in the Gulf or be on standby to conduct the strategic sealift requirements of a company group sized HADR, SASO or other deployment rotation, whilst the third vessel and crew is alongside for a scheduled refit and reboot. If push comes to shove both available vessels be used in the sealift role if for example there was a real need for expanded capacity. Likewise is there was a real concern over subsurface activities near ELOC off the west coast both vessels could be tasked in that hunter role. The third vessel can always be emergency regenerated out of refit to do an urgent sealift mission depending on what phase it is on the refit.

The other point is that with three classes of vessels to deal with in a small fleet of nine the whole issue of training and sustainment also becomes less of a headache and more cost efficient. The other thing to point out is that though it is obviously going to cost more than banging out another OPV, MCMV and a MRV to boost the fleet to nine ships, it nonetheless would be a project spread over 10 years to pay for and get into commission all three vessels (as well as the time to generate and train the crews). But in my view it would also generate superior maritime capability for the Irish Navy, and if that is what the whole rationale of LOA2 is all about lets start planning with a LOA2 mindset and a longer term term focus than the present LOA1 mindset and the present level of procrastination and planning.

In my opinion Ireland should take advantage of the EU's FTA with South Korea and the fact that Babcocks and Thales now have an MOU with both DSME and Hyundai, and get them built in a Korean shipyard and save a fortune. That is what FTA's are there for - Ireland as a EU member state is fully entitled to use such advantages as much as the bigger EU states. You are just as much entitled to buy Korean gear as Poland is or US gear like Germany does anytime you damn well please if it is a good deal. After all getting a good deal saw the Phillipines recently ordered two 3100 tonne 116m Light Frigates for Eur240 million off Hyundai with as much latent fire and sensor processing power as a Inspiration Class Type 31 and indeed the RNZN recently bought a 26000 tonne, 173 meter Maritime Sustainment Ship with light icebreaking capability from them for Eur300 million. If the Absalon's cost USD$190 million 15 years ago in a small Danish yard, in a modern Korean super yard like at HHI I would be surprised if they were still not able to knock out an Absalon under license for comfortably less than Eur300 million. Over a ten year period the annual CapEx cost to the state during the acquisition phase would be around 80-90 million a year in staged payments throughout the shipbuild drumbeat. That should be doable under LOA2 and probably just 40-50 million p.a more in the scheme of things than going down the extra Beckett, MCMV and a Canterbury Clone MRV.

[Banner]

“And while I'm at it who are you who has been lurking here since 2005, only to suddenly become a free speech guardian for another lurker?”

Im genuinely shocked at this level of schoolyard nonsense. I’ve been a member of this forum for a long time and until today thought it was a platform for information sharing and expression of opinion relating to Irish military matters.

Is that not the case?

Maybe I’m wrong and this is Twitter in disguise - full of bile filled trolls who squeal petty nonsense if you disagree with them

[DeV]

MOD: Play the ball, not the man

everyone is entitled to an opinion and this is a discussion board

[na grohmiti]

What has never really been defined or that I never got the memo is what kind of sealift tasking is going to be the mission subset of the proposed MRV. Is is to be a strategic sealift orientated vessel or a tactical sealift orientated vessel?

Strategic sealift would be the delivery of heavy equipment from Ireland to an assembly area, usually a fixed port, where vehicles and equipment are married up with personnel, who are most likely to have been flown into the area of operations. With Ireland now getting dedicated air mobility asset to transport personnel needs to now be factored in. That said like in the case of the Canterbury a company group sized contingent can be moved into a theatre staging point from the ship. Tactical sealift on the other hand is the delivery of equipment and personnel into an operational area; and tactical sealift ships are designed to operate in areas without formal port facilities. Essentially this is LPD / LHD type of vessel.

Sarsfield raises an interesting point and has got me thinking how would I approach this solution. There is some detail to cover so this will be quite a lengthy post.

First up we need to recognise that Ireland has new geo-strategic concerns whereby threats could emerge on its back doorstep. Threats that have significant economic disruptor considerations due to its electronic lines of communications, not just to Ireland but in fact the EU and the what also must be factored in - the US-Canada on the other side of the Atlantic in which it links to. Thus his suggestion that subsurface capabilities for detection and deterrence are required has merit. However there is still a need to get equipment and other material from Ireland to support troops deployed abroad and sealift has long been considered a cornerstone capability that Ireland requires.

In my view the reality is that Ireland must do both. It is not an either or. It has to generate a subsurface capability which includes MCM and at least have a strategic sealift capability to get the bulk of its equipment and vehicles into theatre. The issue though is that any future fleet will be shaped by the realities of manpower and budget. The Irish Navy will have to do a number of things within the realms of a nine vessel Navy and LOA2. With the recent acquisition of the four 90m OPV's and the 55m Lake Class the foundation is there for a very capable EEZ patrol fleet well into the future.

The replacement of Eithne as we know is overdue but also Róisín and Niamh post refit are now heading into their eventual end days though a few years off yet. It is these three vessels which will have to carry the burden of the new roles that need to be assigned in terms of subsea warfare and sealift (strategic sealift bigger priority than tactical in my view as I sincerely don't think that Ireland will wish to go into the amphibious assault business anytime soon), but also additional EEZ patrol capability to reinforce the existing patrol fleet as well as potentially the ability to conduct long range patrols to contribute in anti-piracy operations, merchant ship escort or other roles akin to a surface combatant.

Laying all that out it seems to be (as we have discussed in the past) that an updated Absalon design purposed to its original Flexship role of being able to conduct strategic sealift, long range patrols and subsurface warfare is still the most cogent way forward. Moreover it is likely that Babcock and OMT through the Type 32 design work under consideration for the RN (that will focus on the ability to deploy subsurface systems including MCM remotes and support tenders) would be able to put together a sub-class of three vessels based on an evolved Absalon design to replace Eithne, Róisín and Niamh would pretty much cover all the bases. It would give the small fleet an inherent flexibility and would mean noting the rule of threes, that for example one ship could be tasked with subsurface warfare and deterrence patrols in the wider EEZ and the other available ship available for taskings to support say anti-piracy missions in the Gulf or be on standby to conduct the strategic sealift requirements of a company group sized HADR, SASO or other deployment rotation, whilst the third vessel and crew is alongside for a scheduled refit and reboot. If push comes to shove both available vessels be used in the sealift role if for example there was a real need for expanded capacity. Likewise is there was a real concern over subsurface activities near ELOC off the west coast both vessels could be tasked in that hunter role. The third vessel can always be emergency regenerated out of refit to do an urgent sealift mission depending on what phase it is on the refit.

The other point is that with three classes of vessels to deal with in a small fleet of nine the whole issue of training and sustainment also becomes less of a headache and more cost efficient. The other thing to point out is that though it is obviously going to cost more than banging out another OPV, MCMV and a MRV to boost the fleet to nine ships, it nonetheless would be a project spread over 10 years to pay for and get into commission all three vessels (as well as the time to generate and train the crews). But in my view it would also generate superior maritime capability for the Irish Navy, and if that is what the whole rationale of LOA2 is all about lets start planning with a LOA2 mindset and a longer term term focus than the present LOA1 mindset and the present level of procrastination and planning.

In my opinion Ireland should take advantage of the EU's FTA with South Korea and the fact that Babcocks and Thales now have an MOU with both DSME and Hyundai, and get them built in a Korean shipyard and save a fortune. That is what FTA's are there for - Ireland as a EU member state is fully entitled to use such advantages as much as the bigger EU states. You are just as much entitled to buy Korean gear as Poland is or US gear like Germany does anytime you damn well please if it is a good deal. After all getting a good deal saw the Phillipines recently ordered two 3100 tonne 116m Light Frigates for Eur240 million off Hyundai with as much latent fire and sensor processing power as a Inspiration Class Type 31 and indeed the RNZN recently bought a 26000 tonne, 173 meter Maritime Sustainment Ship with light icebreaking capability from them for Eur300 million. If the Absalon's cost USD$190 million 15 years ago in a small Danish yard, in a modern Korean super yard like at HHI I would be surprised if they were still not able to knock out an Absalon under license for comfortably less than Eur300 million. Over a ten year period the annual CapEx cost to the state during the acquisition phase would be around 80-90 million a year in staged payments throughout the shipbuild drumbeat. That should be doable under LOA2 and probably just 40-50 million p.a more in the scheme of things than going down the extra Beckett, MCMV and a Canterbury Clone MRV.

Interesting analysis.
I think the requirement was identified around the time the Irish Defence forces(With an ARW unit) entered Liberia, very much without lots of support, as part of UNMIL, bringing its soft skin vehicles on the deck of one of the OPVs, landed at Monrovia, and advanced to secure the AO. Until the HQ was secuted in Monrovia, the Naval vessel acted as floating HQ. Later on a Dutch LPD arrived with the heavy equipment, and remained offshore operating as a floating hospital. Around 2007 a slideshow in the NS showed a picture of a proposed MRV, which appeared to be based on the unsuccessful MEKO200 proposal for the NZ competition, which the Canterbury ended up winning. I only found a photo of same recently. Little detail apart from a deck full of APCs, a twin funnel arrangement, and a helideck aft. Otherwise a Meko 200, 3900T.

The discussion has varied in the years since, however the initial one was an Extended Patrol vessel, basically an oversized OPV which with the surplus space a few extra metres would provide, could be used to bring vehicles and stores to similar missions overseas. That extra space could also fulfil some of the floating hospital roles, if equipped as such, either temporarily, using the modular field hospital then in use, or permanently, with a section of the vessel capable of being converted to that role. Later experience in the Med pushed the medical facilities further up the priority, with the Army taking a greater interest in how it can be used for their operations, whether it be bringing equipment securely to an EUBG exercise, or a UN/EU peace enforcement operation. We got an RFP around 2008/2009, the results of which are unknown, but along the way the recession happened, and it was put on hold.
Doctrine in the years since has changed here and there, but the closer we get to signing a contract, the clearer the picture has become of what is required. It is no secret that Damen have been making a serious effort to promote their "Damen Enforcer" type in recent years.
leaflet_enforcer_landing_platform_docks.pdf (damen.com)
Twice recently variants of their designs have visited Irish ports while teams from the DoD, NS and DFHQ are given presentations about capability. The Air Corps even landed an AW139 on the deck of one.
Neither is it a secret that Vard have made presentations to the same folk in the same manner about their 7-313 design. Babcock also feel their T31 fits the bill, though to me that's clutching straws a little.
We are currently in the 2nd year of a design, development & delivery consultancy contract for this vessel type. Money Has been spent to date, but we are still looking at double the cost of an OPV. You can get a lot of ship for €200m. HNLMS Karel Doorman cost €363m in 2014, and €100m of that is her I-Mast 400.
One of the presentations to CoDF from a senior member of the NS gave a costing and plan to advance from the current fleet to a 12 ship fleet, with a combination of MRV, IPV, OPV and M/CIED, for an average of €67m per year..
I have linked to it in the past but the summary was:

Capital costs for a twelve-ship navy amount to €940m over fifteen years. This includes the following:
a. MRV x 2: €400m in total
b. IPV x 2: €20m + €60m (for replacements in 2030 timeframe) in total
c. OPV x 2: €200m in total (P50 replacements)
d. M/CIED x 2: €200m in total
e. OPV LEP x 4: €60m in total (This could be considered a current rather than a capital expenditure)
f. Total: €940m

a. MRV costings are based upon €200m project costs assigned by the Department of Defence and allotted in Vote 36 over three years (2022 – 2024), as approved in the National Development Plan (pg 96).
b. OPV replacement costs are based upon potential inflation of previous OPV build costs of €73m for the P60 class and the EDA assessment of €100m for the European Patrol Corvette (OPV version).
c. Maritime C/IED costs are based upon EDA assessment of €100m for Belgian / Dutch MCM replacement programme.
d. It should be noted that other options with respect to the M/CIED replacement are potentially available. The RNZN procured a second user hull to undertake the role of hydrographic and dive support for approximately €62m ($103m NZD).
e. It should also be noted that there is potentially up to 30% EDF funding for EDA projects such as the European Patrol Corvette.

This is already year 3. IPV x 2 arrive in spring.

[Sarsfield]

Bewildered at the lurker slur! Just someone who is very proud of our defence forces and who wishes the very best of everything for the three services . I have enjoyed being a member of IMO and reading the varied inputs of the members , many of whom obviously have great experience and knowledge of the Defence Forces. I only wished to put forward suggestions . One personal belief from working in industry is that unless we as a nation address the remuneration and retention issues it’s going to be incredibly difficult to implement any plans. I stand to be corrected but submissions made by RACO and others to both white papers sought to change the Naval Service from purely constabulary roles to actual military capabilities. In an ideal world it would my wish to see the Navy equipped with an MRV, frigates and MCM. Only my opinion.

[Jaque'ammer]

Now shake hands, there's some good lads.

Is the EPV/MRV/AT-AT out for tender yet?