Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drydocking?

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

  • Graylion
    replied
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The NS need a dry dock facility close to home.. end of!
    So what is wrong with H&W? And again, how do you plan to pay for it? At a time when we can't afford to pay the troops sensibly?

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The figures around deficent ranks are not contributory to ships not going to sea.

    SCPOs... one sea going appointment in the NS, current 3 serving in Exec branch alone......

    12% CPOs..what divisions are short...??? Ships require two CPOs each, one ERA..one Cox'n the rest shore appointments

    SPOs........one ship appointment on each ship. A L/SA could do the same job!


    The remainder....... probably tech branches vacancies and back in the darkness of time its always been the same.


    But if you haven't ships at sea because they haven't had required maintenance , all of the above are null and void.

    The NS need a dry dock facility close to home.. end of!
    The figures aren’t available by branch so...

    The establishment is based on manning a 8 ship fleet and allowing for ship/shore rotations (which the CRE figures could well have changed).

    Take your point about the SNCOs (can’t find the establishment figures (I hate the IMO search function) at the mo). The more important issue is the JNCOs.

    Exactly and It is of course the junior ratings & JNCOs who undertake the maintenance work (under SNCO & MEO direction/supervision. The NS has had to recruit DE L/ERA’s due to shortages.

    I’m not disagreeing at all that the NS needs a working drydock close by - it has a commercial one at a significantly cheaper cost (including labour) than the restoration of the Haulbowline drydock (as a drydock). There are plans in place that AFAIK includes additional berthage (open to correction on that). I’m also not saying that the Haulbowline dry dock wouldn’t be used or useful.

    But Cork Dockyard has now lost all it’s RoI competition so you’d imagine (not necessarily of course) that they will have more work to justify staying open. It also means that the NS is even more tied to it. And they must have access to it.

    Therefore IMHO scarce resources are (currently) better spent elsewhere within the NS budget. There only thing that would change that would be Cork Dockyard closing. One way of doing that is a multi annual complete NS fleet contract.

    If it was to close then is a drydock a strategic State or NS asset or both?
    To me if NS only - that means Haulbowline
    State - some kind of PPP
    Both - PPP (possibly in Haulbowline)
    Last edited by DeV; 20 January 2018, 11:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    i assume you mean the Government?

    No EU laws on State Aid have a big say

    definitely


    Quite possibly but your either going to have to:
    (a) increase NS establishment (not much point when the strength is so low)
    (b) staff it with DoD civvies who you will need to undertake other duties as well (not necessarily a bad idea, they could support other (non-dry dock maintenance) because the drydock is likely to be used maybe 12 weeks a year at an absolute max)
    (c) just provide the drydock and when drydocking is required get a contractor in

    Or do PPP and run it commercially
    When we took it over, it was operational, and had dockyard staff tasked with drydock operations. Over time by ignoring the Elephant in the room it became psychologically detached and allowed wither on the vine. Your point "b" is relevant as point "c" will be doable when the ship is in the drydock ready for remedial work. Overall it could work as outlined at " b " and " c " so that the Base and Basin are solely for Naval purposes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by CTU View Post
    A dedicated area in the naval base for ship maintenance which free up space in the basin for berths and allow the naval service to keep an eye on the "outside contractors" sounds better to me then hauling a ship overseas if the state were to lose its last dry dock on national security grounds alone, lets not forget this is a navel service we are talking about not a ferry company.
    Honestly given Irish Governmental "planning" such an issue is only going to come to a head if Cobh goes out of service, until then nobody is going to make such an investment even if it does limit the NS capabilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTU
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    So how many million should we invest in a drydock facility for NS use only, that will only be used as a drydock for an average of say 8 weeks annually and will be used as maintenance berth the rest of the time?

    Where outside contractors are likely to have to be brought in anyway!?
    A dedicated area in the naval base for ship maintenance which free up space in the basin for berths and allow the naval service to keep an eye on the "outside contractors" sounds better to me then hauling a ship overseas if the state were to lose its last dry dock on national security grounds alone, lets not forget this is a naval service we are talking about not a ferry company.
    Last edited by CTU; 20 January 2018, 00:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    So how many million should we invest in a drydock facility for NS use only, that will only be used as a drydock for an average of say 8 weeks annually and will be used as maintenance berth the rest of the time?

    Where outside contractors are likely to have to be brought in anyway!?

    At a time when the NS can’t retain personnel due to poor wages and conditions?

    In late 2017, these were how many personnel the NS were deficit:
    NS Lt -36%
    NS SCPO -15%
    NS CPO -12%
    NS SPO -14%
    NS PO -27%
    NS LS -26%

    And that is based on a establishment for an 8 vessel NS and was cut
    The figures around deficent ranks are not contributory to ships not going to sea.

    SCPOs... one sea going appointment in the NS, current 3 serving in Exec branch alone......

    12% CPOs..what divisions are short...??? Ships require two CPOs each, one ERA..one Cox'n the rest shore appointments

    SPOs........one ship appointment on each ship. A L/SA could do the same job!


    The remainder....... probably tech branches vacancies and back in the darkness of time its always been the same.

    But if you haven't ships at sea because they haven't had required maintenance , all of the above are null and void.

    The NS need a dry dock facility close to home.. end of!

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    So how many million should we invest in a drydock facility for NS use only, that will only be used as a drydock for an average of say 8 weeks annually and will be used as maintenance berth the rest of the time?

    Where outside contractors are likely to have to be brought in anyway!?

    At a time when the NS can’t retain personnel due to poor wages and conditions?

    In late 2017, these were how many personnel the NS were deficit:
    NS Lt -36%
    NS SCPO -15%
    NS CPO -12%
    NS SPO -14%
    NS PO -27%
    NS LS -26%

    And that is based on a establishment for an 8 vessel NS and was cut
    The figures around deficent ranks are not contributory to ships not going to sea.

    SCPOs... one sea going appointment in the NS, current 3 serving in Exec branch alone......

    12% CPOs..what divisions are short...??? Ships require two CPOs each, one ERA..one Cox'n the rest shore appointments

    SPOs........one ship appointment on each ship. A L/SA could do the same job!


    The remainder....... probably tech branches vacancies and back in the darkness of time its always been the same.

    But if you haven't ships at sea because they haven't had required maintenance , all of the above are null and void.

    The NS need a dry dock facility close to home.. end of!

    Leave a comment:


  • hptmurphy
    replied
    Absolutely max there are 4 (normally 2-3) scheduled dry docks annually for 2-3 weeks each (normally 2).
    ever spent six weeks in dry dock because of a faulty sonar dome on a 12 month old ship.....?????

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    So how many million should we invest in a drydock facility for NS use only, that will only be used as a drydock for an average of say 8 weeks annually and will be used as maintenance berth the rest of the time?

    Where outside contractors are likely to have to be brought in anyway!?

    At a time when the NS can’t retain personnel due to poor wages and conditions?

    In late 2017, these were how many personnel the NS were deficit:
    NS Lt -36%
    NS SCPO -15%
    NS CPO -12%
    NS SPO -14%
    NS PO -27%
    NS LS -26%

    And that is based on a establishment for an 8 vessel NS and was cut

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    I give up. Pointless engaging with you.
    you
    just
    dont
    get
    it.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
    Where are you getting 12 weeks from? There is a naval vessel out of action at different levels at every stage throughout the year. While not all of these out of service incidents require drydocking, having a berth setaside for repairs and refit, which when filled with water, the drydock can be, would be a well used asset. There is hardly a day in the year when at least one ship does not have its masts surrounded by scaffolding.

    Which as you say doesn’t require drydocking.

    Absolutely max there are 4 (normally 2-3) scheduled dry docks annually for 2-3 weeks each (normally 2).

    We are discussing drydocking specifically

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Where are you getting 12 weeks from? There is a naval vessel out of action at different levels at every stage throughout the year. While not all of these out of service incidents require drydocking, having a berth setaside for repairs and refit, which when filled with water, the drydock can be, would be a well used asset. There is hardly a day in the year when at least one ship does not have its masts surrounded by scaffolding.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    How the State ensures priority choice with the Doyle Shipping group. for use of Cork Dockyard , and supporting it's continued viability is a matter for them .
    i assume you mean the Government?

    No EU laws on State Aid have a big say

    As the naval Drydock would be a strategic asset for Naval Defence purposes
    definitely

    I think PPP would shift priorities to our disadvantage and would increase civilian manning , supervision , policing , security.
    Quite possibly but your either going to have to:
    (a) increase NS establishment (not much point when the strength is so low)
    (b) staff it with DoD civvies who you will need to undertake other duties as well (not necessarily a bad idea, they could support other (non-dry dock maintenance) because the drydock is likely to be used maybe 12 weeks a year at an absolute max)
    (c) just provide the drydock and when drydocking is required get a contractor in

    Or do PPP and run it commercially

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    DSG have barely spent a cent on the yard since they took it over. They have cut up all the old cranes for scrap. The caisson is hauled into position using a tractor. A crawler construction crane is used to lift anything into place.
    I fear if the dockyard suffers a major equipment failure requiring investment (such as pump failure), they won't spend it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    How the State ensures priority choice with the Doyle Shipping group. for use of Cork Dockyard , and supporting it's continued viability is a matter for them . They must have been aware that Dublin Port Authority were closing the only Drydock built by the State , so one must assume they will only act post factum if at all.
    As the naval Drydock would be a strategic asset for Naval Defence purposes I think PPP would shift priorities to our disadvantage and would increase civilian manning , supervision , policing , security.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X