Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Navy Ship??(fiction)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Why would you require 3 identical weapons for training,when the ships with the same weapons are usually tied up in the basin?
    Fail to prepare....prepare to FAIL!

    Comment


    • #17
      So where did they come from?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by morpheus
        Has this one been mentioned, i was on franks board where they were discussing *choke* Naval issues *choke* :D

        Anyway, someone mentioned credible insider info that the NS was interested in this concept and following its development. Its a support ship that Denmark are currently having built...

        The design packs a hefty punch and i doubt wed require the armaments but the rest of the design idea seems very sound and suitable for our waters.

        http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm
        Why wouldnt we require the armaments? Do the UN deploy a lot of peacekeepers to church picnics?
        "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

        Comment


        • #19
          Latest news:It has been decided that the full size Danish ship is excessive for our purposes. However they are looking into the possibility of accepting the patrol version,which is identical,but for the absence of one deck,while keeping a reduced version of the RO-RO capability. In short,same ship,with one deck less,and a P instead of an A in the pennant number.
          Word on the ground has it that the Lithuanianians are interested in Eithne...They are keen to rebuild their Navy around Nato Compatibility,and oddly enough Eithne allows them to do this. Quite a lot of activity on the foxes island to be honest..
          Fail to prepare....prepare to FAIL!

          Comment


          • #20


            Is the DF seriously looking at purchasing the above with the absence of one deck? whats the unit cost of one of these things??

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Farel'
              Latest news:It has been decided that the full size Danish ship is excessive for our purposes. However they are looking into the possibility of accepting the patrol version,which is identical,but for the absence of one deck,while keeping a reduced version of the RO-RO capability. In short,same ship,with one deck less,and a P instead of an A in the pennant number.
              Word on the ground has it that the Lithuanianians are interested in Eithne...They are keen to rebuild their Navy around Nato Compatibility,and oddly enough Eithne allows them to do this. Quite a lot of activity on the foxes island to be honest..
              Em wouldnt that mean extra costs to get less capability?
              "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

              Comment


              • #22
                Not sure on cost...

                http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm


                The ro-ro version has a diesel propulsion plant of two MTU 8000 will provide a maximum speed of 23 knots.

                A patrol ship/frigate derivative is being designed for inclusion with the first two ships to be included in the Danish 2005-2009 defence plan. Omitting the RO/RO deck it will be one deck lower, will have more STANDARD FLEX container positions, and will have a propulsion plant providing a speed of about 28 knots.

                Comment


                • #24


                  The Bridge







                  Click here for a larger version of the above image



                  More Pictures Here

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    Thanks john

                    Will happily admit that i don't speak Danish, but looked at the link you provided, and it appears to me that something listed as the Nye inspektionsfartøjer might be more in line with what the naval service budget than the Flexible support ship

                    Info about the new danish OPVs can be found on

                    http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Hi...sfartoejer.htm

                    Unfortunately its in danish, but form what i can make out, it appears to be designewd for operations in Greenland, while having a capability to support overseas missions and undertake anti-submarine warfare, might be in the running to replace the three ships due for replacement this decade.

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      Originally posted by morpheus
                      The design packs a hefty punch and i doubt wed require the armaments but the rest of the design idea seems very sound and suitable for our waters.

                      http://www.navalteam.dk/supportship.htm
                      Why does the INS not follow the danish model, would be interesting to find out the difference in the budgets between the two nations considering that they have similar sized nations and would be considered by some to be maritime states. Besides, if Irelands forces do continue the trend of increasing operational tempo then a heftier punch might be needed.

                      Comment


                      • #27
                        Senior naval staff were furious when the govt announced the figure of 8 ships, especially as the RACO report recommended 15 and the Price Waterhouse Report stated clearly that 8 ships could not even fulfill the Dept of Marine request for boardings and fishery protection never mind any drugs interdiction or 'defence 'roles. PWR recommended a minimum of 12.

                        As a result the navy are determined that all new vessels will be considerably larger, more capable, faster with greater endurance and able to interoperate with other western navies on UN missions. They are pushing for the next ships to be based on the new HDMS Flex warship Absalon.

                        Please note that the then Minister Molloy in 1977 stated that the Irish navy needed and would receive 15 OPV and 10 CPC!!!! Also EU agreed to fund 65% of 4 P-31 but Verolme made such a dogs dinner of P-31 the EU refused to fund the remaining 3 due to excessive cost overruns!!!!

                        The original plan was for the P-31 class to be upgraded to corvettes with anti sub torpedoes and a close in weapon system. Part of this initial plan was to establish a small naval air arm which was to be designated the Naval Air Service and whose pilots would be trained by the Air Corps.

                        The 2 specialised naval Dauphin helicopters were to grow to a fleet of 5 and the Air Corps fleet was to grow to 10 Dauphin to replace the Alouette for coastal rescue. Four larger Puma were to be acquired for troop transport and long range SAR.

                        Unfortunately like all well conceived PDF plans this was destroyed by the politicians and the downturn in the Irish economy. Of course the PDF was assured that once everything in the economy upturned the plan would be applied. SUCKERS!!!!!

                        PS. Don't forget all of the above was 65% grant aided by the EU [ including a planned total of 4 Casa Persuader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                        REMEMBER ALL YE MATELOTS THERE WOULD BE NO 'NAVY' AFLOAT IF WE HADN'T JOINED THE EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                        Sarsfield

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          Originally posted by Sarsfield

                          As a result the navy are determined that all new vessels will be considerably larger, more capable, faster with greater endurance and able to interoperate with other western navies on UN missions. They are pushing for the next ships to be based on the new HDMS Flex warship Absalon.
                          A confession for you. Some of the MODS and members of IMO invented this story to see how far what is posted here is taken a sgospel or "defence forces source" by the less ethical in the media. You took the bait it seems. It is a product of my over active imagination,propogated with the assistance of a few well placed friends.

                          Also EU agreed to fund 65% of 4 P-31 but Verolme made such a dogs dinner of P-31 the EU refused to fund the remaining 3 due to excessive cost overruns!!!!
                          2 P30 class were planned,plus a similar type earmarked for Research. Eithne was supposed to cost €12m,but due to poor research on the part of the DoD,who assumed you could just put a flat deck on a P20 and land a heli on it,and A dockyard that was seeking handouts in time of recession wen all around were tightening purse strings,as well as a thoroughly unprofessional approach to work,the cost skyrocketed to almost €30m,delayed by 2 years.

                          The original plan was for the P-31 class to be upgraded to corvettes with anti sub torpedoes and a close in weapon system. Part of this initial plan was to establish a small naval air arm which was to be designated the Naval Air Service and whose pilots would be trained by the Air Corps.
                          Fiction. Possibly rumour,but still fiction.The need for CIWS was not accepted in naval warfare until Post Falklands,at which time, the P30 class was already in the plate cutting stage.

                          The 2 specialised naval Dauphin helicopters were to grow to a fleet of 5 and the Air Corps fleet was to grow to 10 Dauphin to replace the Alouette for coastal rescue. Four larger Puma were to be acquired for troop transport and long range SAR.
                          The P30 class was designed to operate the Lynx helicopter. The plan to aquire the Puma did in 1983 after the return of 242 when it was decided we could not afford one. The Dauphin was a compromise.



                          PS. Don't forget all of the above was 65% grant aided by the EU [ including a planned total of 4 Casa Persuader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          REMEMBER ALL YE MATELOTS THERE WOULD BE NO 'NAVY' AFLOAT IF WE HADN'T JOINED THE EU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                          There was a Naval service from 1946. There was even a Naval service in 1971.

                          Now have you anything new to add to this or is it normal for you to write a theory on how our DF went awry? If so I suggest you research before writing again.

                          By the way. Welcome to IMO


                          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                          Comment


                          • #29
                            the Eithne class was a project development that worked very well given the limited funding available for its development after commissioning. the ship was pressed into service without its role being fully being thought out. The whole gun and fire control system was a waste of money ...but it was the only feasible system at the time. the EU refused to pay for the weapons fit given that she was to be a fishery protection vessel and the whole helo thing with the aercorps was an unmitigated but forseeable disaster.

                            After the descision was made that the airwing would never be an integral part of the NS the plan just fell apart. If this descision had been made in the planning system the helo pad and hanger would never been fitted.

                            Top faults on the Eithne discovered after delivery listed would read like this.

                            Wrong gun and fire control system
                            the crane to hoist ammo on the focsle was rotten with sea water and had to be removed...hence all reammunition had to be done by hand throught the hanger down three decks to the magazine.
                            The rheinmetals were far too expensive and barrel replace ments were also costly
                            there was no flood system to the RU lockers on the bridge deck so all ammo had to be stored in the mag and dragged by hand to the guns when required.
                            the seariders cradles were backwards
                            the heli fuel tank was too close to the #2 engine room causing condensation in the heli fuel.
                            the hot water system was piped stainless steel which had to be replaced after the first year due to corrosion.
                            the airconditioning in the cabins never worked.
                            the sonar system had to be replaced by Decca after 12 months.
                            the quarter deck was prone to flooding in heavy seas.
                            the yokahama fenders supplied were too heavy to be raised by hand.
                            there was no run out facility at the Qms lobby where the PABX was ,for the gangway as a result the gangway had to be mounted on the flight deck.
                            The guard rails on the flight deck were steel instead of aluminum and were dangerously awkwark to operate in heavy seas.
                            the same were not galvanised and rusted like ****.
                            There was no tumble home on the deck and water lodged and was impossible to clear.
                            the fresh water tanks were not big enough to provide water for engine cooling and domestic needs over a prolonged time
                            the desalination plant could only provide 1ton per hour...the engines required 4 tons per hour for cooling

                            and some ****er lost the keys to my cabin......

                            but all in all she has more than paid for herself. remeber that she has been in service since 1985 and in 1986 spent 206 days at sea ...which equated to circumnavigating the globe eight times.
                            I loved that ship! :D
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • #30
                              Sarsfield ...I think you probably believe too much of what you write...given your ideas of the proposed weaponry of the Eithne .


                              just one tiny problem...where were we going to put all this high tech shit as deck space is severly limited and why would we need it as she was designed as an off shore FPV.

                              I don't claim to have yor qualifications but I did live in the wagon for two years so i believe I am more than qualified to discuss the issue.
                              next time you have a chance to look at the vessel ..have a look around and see what the constrictions are!
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X