Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
    So something like the above could have a role, just not as a CPV replacement.

    Along similar lines, is there any merit to the retention of Eithne post retirement from the OPV role, as an auxilliary/training vessel for NS recruits and cadets and also to work with IMERC as an R&D platform
    for technology proving/ development?
    Would there be enough work for it ?

    As far as I know there is no NMCI training vessel, the trainees are sent on NS & commercial vessels

    Does the Marine Institute work with IMERC ? They have the MVs Celtic Explorer & Celtic Voyager.

    http://www.marine.ie/Home/sites/defa...0Low%20Res.pdf

    http://www.marine.ie/Home/sites/defa...ure%20Only.pdf

    The NS can help out as required in addition on normal patrols.

    Notice how the old vessels have been retired before the new ones have arrived ? Probably due to lack of crews

    If/when the EPV is ordered they should allow space for say 10 trainees (or IMERC personnel) and space for a few containers

    Alternatively as more NS personnel are recruited, keep on an older vessel for a year to allow for training.

    IMERC works and is cost effective as it uses existing NS resources (not bespoken ones)
    Last edited by DeV; 20 October 2015, 18:10.

    Comment


    • There is a lot that can be achieved through having a dedicated asset however as you say it may not be cost effective to keep the vessel active. There may also be a case for keeping her permanently alongside for such a role, in which case age is irrelevant. HMS Bristol for example is nearing 50 years old.

      Comment


      • Vessel sale/retention

        Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
        There is a lot that can be achieved through having a dedicated asset however as you say it may not be cost effective to keep the vessel active. There may also be a case for keeping her permanently alongside for such a role, in which case age is irrelevant. HMS Bristol for example is nearing 50 years old.
        This is a tricky scenario. Decommission a vessel and you also alter the Establishment for the Navy by the amount, ranks and trades on that ship plus an element of seagoing replacements that allows for courses, sickness, and other deployments. Our ship numbers are finite and any magpies will be instead of and NOT as well as!! We cannot trade frontline capability for one trick ponies. Any other bright ideas confuses our masters and ultimately ourselves.
        Proposals to retain ships has never floated.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          This is a tricky scenario. Decommission a vessel and you also alter the Establishment for the Navy by the amount, ranks and trades on that ship plus an element of seagoing replacements that allows for courses, sickness, and other deployments. Our ship numbers are finite and any magpies will be instead of and NOT as well as!! We cannot trade frontline capability for one trick ponies. Any other bright ideas confuses our masters and ultimately ourselves.
          Proposals to retain ships has never floated.
          I assume you mean decommission and fail to replace?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            I assume you mean decommission and fail to replace?
            As do I. The scenario proposed involves retention after replacement .

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
              There is a lot that can be achieved through having a dedicated asset however as you say it may not be cost effective to keep the vessel active. There may also be a case for keeping her permanently alongside for such a role, in which case age is irrelevant. HMS Bristol for example is nearing 50 years old.
              HMS Bristol is only used for accommodation, the cost of maintaining old platforms as training vessels is costly; once a cost benefit analysis is done (& has been many years ago), there is no merit

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                There is a lot that can be achieved through having a dedicated asset however as you say it may not be cost effective to keep the vessel active. There may also be a case for keeping her permanently alongside for such a role, in which case age is irrelevant. HMS Bristol for example is nearing 50 years old.
                I think Eithne should be "retained" alongside as a Training/Museum facillity. She is the last Verlome built vessel (and the most impressive I think) After all look what they have in Belfast.

                Comment


                • It would be a lovely idea to keep her as a museum, but not on the DF budget.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                    As do I. The scenario proposed involves retention after replacement .
                    I am saying DONT buy a ship if it is going to eat into the numbers and designated strength of an 8 ship Navy. An odd manned vessel will reduce frontline ships to 7. Retaining ships as museums or training facilities involves manning , useage in the case of training, and budget implications. We need to settle the ongoing replacement programme and build in fleet capabilities as currently perceived. Museum ships require dedicated berthage with public access and an organisation to suitably man, maintain, and show her at a cost to the public.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      I am saying DONT buy a ship if it is going to eat into the numbers and designated strength of an 8 ship Navy. An odd manned vessel will reduce frontline ships to 7. Retaining ships as museums or training facilities involves manning , useage in the case of training, and budget implications. We need to settle the ongoing replacement programme and build in fleet capabilities as currently perceived. Museum ships require dedicated berthage with public access and an organisation to suitably man, maintain, and show her at a cost to the public.
                      My proposal was not to retain as a museum ship, that was said by others. If that were to happen it should be funded from the National Lottery or the OPW and manned by a combination of some voluntary exer group and the local authority. It certainly should not come from the NS budget, even if there is some precedent with the IAC museum.

                      Regarding the implications of her retention in a semi active training/r&d role, as Eithne falls last in the current replacement programme, her retention after replacement would not have any implication on renewing the fleet. In fact, the 8 ship fleet should be regarded as a minimum number of operational vessels, notwithstanding auxiliaries etc. Surely there are aspirations beyond 8 vessels in any case. Her retention, even as a shoreside asset, should only be considered on a supplementary budget and if that cannot be achieved forget about it. Under the current Minister, who seems to have saltwater in his veins it would seem a possibility. He may not be there in a few months though and I would be sorry to see him leave the post.

                      Regarding the enhancement of current vessels I absolutely agree, as they were delivered to a very minimal military spec for their size. Air Search radar(Sea Giraffe AMB or similar) , UAV Capability , Unmanned secondary armament are all realistic all achievable.

                      Comment


                      • To quote page 79 of WP 2015:

                        "....due for replacement in the coming years"
                        "...will be replaced with similar vessels with counter-mine and counter-IED capabilities"
                        ".... an enhanced capability .... in meeting .... ongoing requirements and contingencies, including the protection of Ireland's vital sea lanes of communication."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          The WP is a political document and as such is subject to constraints, advantage, control, delay, and general hostage to fortune.
                          No, it is Government (and therefore DoD and DF) policy. If it isn't in it, it won't happen!

                          Of course, if a River class could be held up as meeting this criteria then it would be ok...... but they aren't they are OPVs (only 200 tonnes less than Beckett's displacement but they are nearly double that of the CPVs.

                          The NS want CPVs, the Government want CPVs, they will get CPVs!

                          Once LE WBY is on the way I assume that they will look at the MRV (to replace Eithne (again that's what the WP says)) and the new CPV class.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            No, it is Government (and therefore DoD and DF) policy. If it isn't in it, it won't happen!

                            Of course, if a River class could be held up as meeting this criteria then it would be ok...... but they aren't they are OPVs (only 200 tonnes less than Beckett's displacement but they are nearly double that of the CPVs.

                            The NS want CPVs, the Government want CPVs, they will get CPVs!

                            Once LE WBY is on the way I assume that they will look at the MRV (to replace Eithne (again that's what the WP says)) and the new CPV class.
                            Indeed you may say No on the genesis and purpose of White Papers. However they are largely to control the bounds and development of spending Departments such as the Department of Defence eg 2 Brigades, 8 ships, Ministerial transport, strengths etc.
                            The last thing the Navy, going forward, needs are vessels with restricted range and employability. We potentially have big asks such as deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean and further afield. The days of limited range are over.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              Indeed you may say No on the genesis and purpose of White Papers. However they are largely to control the bounds and development of spending Departments such as the Department of Defence eg 2 Brigades, 8 ships, Ministerial transport, strengths etc.
                              The last thing the Navy, going forward, needs are vessels with restricted range and employability. We potentially have big asks such as deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean and further afield. The days of limited range are over.
                              Yes and Government policy!

                              That probably is one of the reasons for the EPV/MRV (and overseas is in the WP for the NS and AC)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Yes and Government policy!

                                That probably is one of the reasons for the EPV/MRV (and overseas is in the WP for the NS and AC)
                                Government Policy changes like the weather to suit their own ends. If three River come up for offer from the RN, and the Minister gets a call offering them at a bargain basement cost, the potential purchase will assessed based on the merits, and if deemed prudent will go forward. You're old enough to know how the game works at this stage DeV.
                                What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X