Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

navy

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Just surmising that other budget restricted combatants stick fairly big calibre units onto trucks and use them in multirole su/air modes. Possibly better than NOT getting any potential from them....
    Nope.

    Introducing, or keeping on, a weapon system has a huge tail cost - training people to use it, training people to maintain it, training people to train people to use it, training people to train people to maintain it, designing, and maintaining a certification/audit system to manage all the training and maintenance - all for a weapon with a marginal use at best.

    If you wanted to piss €50 notes up against a wall for no real world benefit then go for it....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ropebag View Post
      Nope.

      Introducing, or keeping on, a weapon system has a huge tail cost - training people to use it, training people to maintain it, training people to train people to use it, training people to train people to maintain it, designing, and maintaining a certification/audit system to manage all the training and maintenance - all for a weapon with a marginal use at best.

      If you wanted to piss €50 notes up against a wall for no real world benefit then go for it....
      There is always an excuse but if its there, and there are Engineers in the country , and small engineering companies abound, then a way to use existing equipment could be maximised. Boarding it gets it out of your hair but weakens a potential asset. P31's potential was diminished by in-house decisions but the means and way always remained while the ship was alive. Our philosophy will have to be one of maximum use and adaption of existing equipments.

      Comment


      • #33
        By higher calibre weapon I mean the main gun fitted 57mm/76mm. Just to ensure it is programmed to engage a selected shore target by the most accurate means possible. We also need to consider NSM. Our budget is misused , If you allocate a total annual figure to Defence then the money should be spent totally. If the Pay element is unspent then it should be spent on structures and military equipment. If they take back 100million Euro every year that is a lot of military/naval potential.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          By higher calibre weapon I mean the main gun fitted 57mm/76mm. Just to ensure it is programmed to engage a selected shore target by the most accurate means possible. We also need to consider NSM. Our budget is misused , If you allocate a total annual figure to Defence then the money should be spent totally. If the Pay element is unspent then it should be spent on structures and military equipment. If they take back 100million Euro every year that is a lot of military/naval potential.
          Just a few interesting things about necessity and capability. In the search for the missing fisherman, an AIS picture on FB , of the search area off Hook Head to Tuskar, shows the position of all the participating vessels and includes one ship passing through and a virtual wreck buoy. It demonstrates that with the correct technology you can monitor your AOP effectively. In contrast we cannot, at this time ,do the same, within military/naval control for our airspace. The ability of others to historically monitor the skies over Teheran and confirm a missile strike is an example of where we need to be as soon as possible. We still have a big vacuum in UW surveillance and in all departments lack the edge to intercept and take control of intrusions. There is nothing to stop an OPV type vessel being fitted to frigate standard for Defensive purposes.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            Just a few interesting things about necessity and capability. In the search for the missing fisherman, an AIS picture on FB , of the search area off Hook Head to Tuskar, shows the position of all the participating vessels and includes one ship passing through and a virtual wreck buoy. It demonstrates that with the correct technology you can monitor your AOP effectively. In contrast we cannot, at this time ,do the same, within military/naval control for our airspace. The ability of others to historically monitor the skies over Teheran and confirm a missile strike is an example of where we need to be as soon as possible. We still have a big vacuum in UW surveillance and in all departments lack the edge to intercept and take control of intrusions. There is nothing to stop an OPV type vessel being fitted to frigate standard for Defensive purposes.
            AIS is only mandated for passenger vessels and those with a gross tonnage of 300 or more. All aircraft flying in controlled airspace should also be equipped with a transponder so the two method of tracking are very similar. Remember small boats like those which could traffic illegal cargos do not need to have AIS. Likewise low flying small aircraft outside controlled space does also not need a transponder. And it is not that we have never had such systems in the NS, even the old Flowers were equipped to fight underwater threats. What is needed is something like a modern version of the Eithne, she did have a decent sensor suite both for air and underwater. A modern version would be slightly larger and as the environment has changed have some form of active/protection system. Looking at the USCG there new Heritage class cutters (based on the VARD7-110) would be along the line on what could fit the bill.

            Comment


            • #36
              There are satellite systems available, at relatively low cost, capable of providing a real time surveillance view of our waters, with no requirement for transponders. In fact the ships that have transponders make finding the ones hiding easier in the clutter of targets.
              They can be launched commercially, for our use exclusively.
              German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
              German 2: Private? I am a general!
              German 1: That is the bad news.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                AIS is only mandated for passenger vessels and those with a gross tonnage of 300 or more. All aircraft flying in controlled airspace should also be equipped with a transponder so the two method of tracking are very similar. Remember small boats like those which could traffic illegal cargos do not need to have AIS. Likewise low flying small aircraft outside controlled space does also not need a transponder. And it is not that we have never had such systems in the NS, even the old Flowers were equipped to fight underwater threats. What is needed is something like a modern version of the Eithne, she did have a decent sensor suite both for air and underwater. A modern version would be slightly larger and as the environment has changed have some form of active/protection system. Looking at the USCG there new Heritage class cutters (based on the VARD7-110) would be along the line on what could fit the bill.
                I'm not fully conversant with all the regulations on transponders but you will find that irish regulations require all minor and major fishing vessels within our waters have to be fitted with an approved transponder and an EPIRB as in case of the vessel that went down. With aircraft fitted all are supposed to emit Code Charlie for position and altitude which includes all military aircraft as well. Right now we are short of building a picture of all activity in our surface , subsurface, and airspace. Currently it may be a requirement that vessels between 12 and 24 metres have to be fitted with radar transponders and EPIRBS. Effectively very few ships are NOT fitted with transponders but not all are transmitting all the time including military vessels. Code Charlie is not to be switched off per se.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  There are satellite systems available, at relatively low cost, capable of providing a real time surveillance view of our waters, with no requirement for transponders. In fact the ships that have transponders make finding the ones hiding easier in the clutter of targets.
                  They can be launched commercially, for our use exclusively.
                  Can you give me the name of the system or provider?
                  The only satellites I know that are fitted with SAR capable of identifying a vessel at sea cost several hundred million euros, so I would like to expand my knowledge.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    Can you give me the name of the system or provider?
                    The only satellites I know that are fitted with SAR capable of identifying a vessel at sea cost several hundred million euros, so I would like to expand my knowledge.
                    https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.co...6338-Anistiamo

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      In our case tracking and surveillance should use existing systems and down links where available. we should use our membership of the EU to gain capabilities on the foot of alliances and groups.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        In our case tracking and surveillance should use existing systems and down links where available. we should use our membership of the EU to gain capabilities on the foot of alliances and groups.
                        Already happening/happened

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thanks for the reminder.

                          From what I understood at the time the Anistiamo was an effort by Kongsberg to remarket free capacity on existing satellites primarily the German TerraSat-X. This I understood was to be an interim measure until a dedicated Irish chain of satellites could be built and launched. I had not seen any currently available low cost, real time, exclusive use satellites.

                          Taking the TerraSat-X as an example of a radar equipped satellite it is a joint effort from DLR (German NASA) and Airbus with the latter responsible for the commercial use. The reason why commercial use is available is that the satellite cost €180m and as it is in a low Earth orbit it only passes over Germany every 3-4 day and then only for a few minutes. To understand this it is necessary to understand how LEO satellites work (not how Hollywood shows them). Unlike GSO satellites (like weather and TV) the orbit of the satellite moves constantly in an orbit over the North Pole moving 24deg (approx.) every orbit, and each orbit is around 95 minutes. Luckily for us living in a northern latitude the re-visit time is shorter than someone at the equator. But it still means a re-visit time of 2-3 days. And then there is the resolution, in scan mode it can cover a strip about 150km wide with a 16m resolution. This means that something 16m x 16m will show up as a single pixel. This is fine for a large cargo ship but anything below the size of our OPV-L will not always show-up. The resolution can be improved with the scan width will reduce, down to less than 1m is possible. However satellites such as TerraSat-X have enough fuel for normally 10yrs with no refuelling possibilities. This fuel is for the satellite to maintain its altitude and in LEO the orbit is constantly decaying and the satellite needs to be boosted in altitude every now and then. This fuel can also be used to change the track of the satellite but this tends to burn the fuel rather quickly.

                          While satellites can provide some support they are limited and cannot provide real-time at the moment. There will still be a need for airborne or surface radar to identify possible targets of interest which then have to be investigated.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            Can you give me the name of the system or provider?
                            The only satellites I know that are fitted with SAR capable of identifying a vessel at sea cost several hundred million euros, so I would like to expand my knowledge.
                            https://www.iceye.com/press/press-re...mpression=true
                            One example of what's available.
                            German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                            German 2: Private? I am a general!
                            German 1: That is the bad news.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                              Thanks for that.
                              I have had a good look at what ICEYE are offering and it could be something useful provided the "proof of concept" satellites work, that they are able to develop the capabilities. Naturally this will rely on them being able to fund the project during the early stages.
                              They seem to be trying a lot of different things at the moment:

                              ICEYE-X1 was launched 12 Jan 2018 on an Indian PSLV and was developed in-house. It is a 70kg satellite with an expected life of 3 years.
                              ICEYE-X2 was launched 3 Dec 2018 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 and has some Polish components. It is an upgrade to allow 3m resolution.
                              ICEYE-X3 was launched 5 May 2019 on US/NZ Electron KS low cost launcher and is part of the US Army Harbinger project. It combines a York Space Systems bus with the ICEYE SAR payload. It too has an expected life of 3 years.
                              ICEYE-X4&5 were launched together 5 July 2019 on a Russian Soyuz-2.

                              It seems that they are in the early stages of developing their system and it will be sometime before they will be a fully operation one. That is not to say it should not be explored but the costs and limitations of such a system should be clear upfront. As we would only ever be able to utilize the satellite for a small proportion of its orbits sharing will always be put forward be the bean counters. If this happens then nothing will get off the ground. It take someone to take the plunge and put the initial constellation in orbit, then as it grows others will join. Really looking at this it should be an EU project maybe Frontex, but as we know even in PESCO national interests take precedence. So maybe it could be something for us together with the Finns and the Poles to start.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                Thanks for that.
                                I have had a good look at what ICEYE are offering and it could be something useful provided the "proof of concept" satellites work, that they are able to develop the capabilities. Naturally this will rely on them being able to fund the project during the early stages.
                                They seem to be trying a lot of different things at the moment:

                                ICEYE-X1 was launched 12 Jan 2018 on an Indian PSLV and was developed in-house. It is a 70kg satellite with an expected life of 3 years.
                                ICEYE-X2 was launched 3 Dec 2018 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 and has some Polish components. It is an upgrade to allow 3m resolution.
                                ICEYE-X3 was launched 5 May 2019 on US/NZ Electron KS low cost launcher and is part of the US Army Harbinger project. It combines a York Space Systems bus with the ICEYE SAR payload. It too has an expected life of 3 years.
                                ICEYE-X4&5 were launched together 5 July 2019 on a Russian Soyuz-2.

                                It seems that they are in the early stages of developing their system and it will be sometime before they will be a fully operation one. That is not to say it should not be explored but the costs and limitations of such a system should be clear upfront. As we would only ever be able to utilize the satellite for a small proportion of its orbits sharing will always be put forward be the bean counters. If this happens then nothing will get off the ground. It take someone to take the plunge and put the initial constellation in orbit, then as it grows others will join. Really looking at this it should be an EU project maybe Frontex, but as we know even in PESCO national interests take precedence. So maybe it could be something for us together with the Finns and the Poles to start.
                                Their is a growing trend of industry taking the initiative and offering solutions such as the Dark Vessel Programme. It mentions in a description that ICEYE will provide info every few hours.. I think the current Europe, Mediterranean, Atlantic coverage of AIS seems OK. In Military terms getting target information occasionally isn't sufficient. We must equip ships with their own acquisition, classification, and target engagement systems. Industry with ECDIS have created a new series of problems and a large training gap to be adequately filled. As regards turning off AIS, the system could be designed to always show the ship symbol as in CODE Charlie for aircraft.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X