Irish Naval Mediterranean EU rescue patrols

[pym]

Sure but lets be far with the Crash and the aftermath, say there's only the 150ish million for the 3 P 60's, what does that buy as current Western OPV's? I mean the BAM/Hollands seem to be about €120 million from what I can tell, even if we got the same price that would get you 1 hull out of the replacement, and only 2 if you add in the budget for P64 as I can tell, am I wrong? I mean the isn't the "MRV/EPV" got a ballpark of 150ish?

So far as I can work out, the difference in price is probably more to do with the comparative sensor fit than the heli pad/hanger - integrated AESA (Holland Class), fire control radar, ESM suites, link-11+, countermeasures, IFF, srboc - different league to the P60's, heli deck or not.

Also, in all honesty, the P60 price was so reasonable I have a feeling it was financially supported by the UK Gov in some way shape or form.

I was surprised at how little free space was left on the aft deck of the P60's after the stretch from the P50 class. From what was said here, I think DoD would have had a canary if the vessels had been delivered with an aft deck potentially capable of taking a helicopter - even if it would have required an extensive refit down the road.

When I look at the Holland Class, the BAE vessels, or the BAM's, it seems to me that the P60's have a huge amount of extra crew space in comparison - they're probably a lot more comfortable to serve on.

[Orion]

There's a whiff of arrogance in that comment that ill-befits a nation with HPVs that can't afford the helicopter......... All of our new builds don't have a helideck and our UAVs are made my DJI.......

Always a good idea to check the mirror before taking the piss .....

Mirror Mirror on the wall ...

I think what you were trying to say is ....

Ireland once had aspirations to equip a HPV with a Naval Service rotary wing

Due to crewing, equipment and financial constraints this did not happen

The flight deck requirement was dropped for subsequent acquisitions ...

What exactly is your point?

[na grohmiti]

Suggestions that all a ship needs for a helideck is a bit of flat deck with a H painted on it is absolute nonsense. Unless of course you only want the aircraft to land and take off when the ship is safely berthed.
Eithne's fit, while relatively basic compared to some, included an air search radar to vector the aircraft back to the ship (with team of ATC like naval crew embarked aboard ship in a purpose built operations room below the bridge) once the aircraft found the ship it was provided with visual and electronic landing aids aboard the ship. On landing it also provided the aircraft with a deck to which it could anchor itself to, while the ground crew got to work on securing the aircraft to a pitching, rolling deck, provided with numerous aircraft tie down points. If things went wrong they had to be capable of puutting out an aircraft fire on deck before the fire spread to the ship. The ship also provided a refuelling source. This was useful but problematic.
On top of the above the helideck needs to be located somewhere that eddys and wind shear from the ships superstructure and funnel would be minimal.
All these things add greatly to a projected cost.

[ancientmariner]

Flight Decks

Suggestions that all a ship needs for a helideck is a bit of flat deck with a H painted on it is absolute nonsense. Unless of course you only want the aircraft to land and take off when the ship is safely berthed.
Eithne's fit, while relatively basic compared to some, included an air search radar to vector the aircraft back to the ship (with team of ATC like naval crew embarked aboard ship in a purpose built operations room below the bridge) once the aircraft found the ship it was provided with visual and electronic landing aids aboard the ship. On landing it also provided the aircraft with a deck to which it could anchor itself to, while the ground crew got to work on securing the aircraft to a pitching, rolling deck, provided with numerous aircraft tie down points. If things went wrong they had to be capable of puutting out an aircraft fire on deck before the fire spread to the ship. The ship also provided a refuelling source. This was useful but problematic.
On top of the above the helideck needs to be located somewhere that eddys and wind shear from the ships superstructure and funnel would be minimal.
All these things add greatly to a projected cost.

The P31 was equipped to HOSTAC Level 1 in 1984. What has happened in the meantime is debatable but the aspirations of modern Naval operations at sea includes ability to land on most ship borne helicopters but not necessarily to retain them or provide a hangar. Ability to fuel, provide refuge, vertrep, transfer personnel or troops are all sustainable assets for any ship in a cohesive unit. The p31 costs were minimal for the times that were in it then. If we harp on at costs we will continue to dilute capability and waste millions on stocking fillers.

[DeV]

The P31 was equipped to HOSTAC Level 1 in 1984. What has happened in the meantime is debatable but the aspirations of modern Naval operations at sea includes ability to land on most ship borne helicopters but not necessarily to retain them or provide a hangar. Ability to fuel, provide refuge, vertrep, transfer personnel or troops are all sustainable assets for any ship in a cohesive unit. The p31 costs were minimal for the times that were in it then. If we harp on at costs we will continue to dilute capability and waste millions on stocking fillers.

Cost and VFM is what the DF have woken up to in the last 10 years

The reality is that we will have 1 vessel capable of operating a helo (the MRV) the facilities available (air search radar, hanger facilities, crew facilities, DCFF capabilities, refuelling capabilities etc etc) will come down to how much money can be found and the costs quoted.

Either way even if there was 4 NS vessels with full helo capability, the most cost efficient solution would be EC135s/AW139s (best to be hoped for would be navalised ones, worst case existing ones) operated and maintained to AC personnel. It just can't be justified.

[ancientmariner]

You are near the nub of the naval problem. Based on an 0.3% of total finance we are confined to police duties and global ACP. We are neutered in the Defend and Protect role and a long way from the firepower of our lowly corvettes. I am not proposing all our ships should now have flight decks or that we have any connection with the AC other than initial training. We can build a concrete dimensional exact flight deck with ship type obstructional heights on the waste grounds in Haulbowline. In the meantime we must ensure that the MRV can cover ALL roles within reason but no painting into corners and no connection with other Corps additional requirements, such as vehicles of unique dimensions, workshops, and other red line ideas.

[hptmurphy]

The reality is that we will have 1 vessel capable of operating a helo (the MRV) the facilities available (air search radar, hanger facilities, crew facilities, DCFF capabilities, refuelling capabilities etc etc) will come down to how much money can be found and the costs quoted.

Wheres the reality......we don't have that vessel, its a political aspiration as opposed to any semblance of a realty.

Having a single unit is capable of these tasks is another fallacy, if we are to have the various packages associated with any vessel, it must be available at all times, and that takes at least two vessels.

I am not proposing all our ships should now have flight decks or that we have any connection with the AC other than initial training. We can build a concrete dimensional exact flight deck with ship type obstructional heights on the waste grounds in Haulbowline

.

And it can be used as a basket ball court or someother... Until we wake up the reality of not having naval people to operate naval helicopters then that is all the piece of ground is worth!

Unless we have intention to deploy vessels on peace enforcement missions outside of the state we don't need helos based on vessels and certainly not to the spec Eithne was built to.

We don't do anti submarine warfare, so why do we need a ship capable of operating a helo...?

We don't have any serious anti ship capability so again anti ship ops with helos why?

We have a very well equipped and capable coast guard independent of the DF who are never going to operate from minor war fare vessels?

Yes we could do with a ship that could land and fuel a helo, but we don't need to go down the route of having organic aviation units at sea.

Here's an honest question how much more would the P60's have cost to be "air capable"?

how long is a piece of string as we have never been capable of doing enough..'all or nothing '...and usually 'all' leading to catastrophic failure because of concept due to oversight.

Either way even if there was 4 NS vessels with full helo capability, the most cost efficient solution would be EC135s/AW139s (best to be hoped for would be navalised ones, worst case existing ones) operated and maintained to AC personnel. It just can't be justified.

Some one will always be able to justify it if only to try and prove that everything done up to that point was flawed.

You just have to look across the water where the RN have built to carriers that they RAF may never commit aircraft to !.... just because someone says they need aircraft carriers!!!!

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=hptmurphy;453734]Wheres the reality......we don't have that vessel, its a political aspiration as opposed to any semblance of a realty.

Having a single unit is capable of these tasks is another fallacy, if we are to have the various packages associated with any vessel, it must be available at all times, and that takes at least two vessels.

.

And it can be used as a basket ball court or someother... Until we wake up the reality of not having naval people to operate naval helicopters then that is all the piece of ground is worth!

Unless we have intention to deploy vessels on peace enforcement missions outside of the state we don't need helos based on vessels and certainly not to the spec Eithne was built to.

We don't do anti submarine warfare, so why do we need a ship capable of operating a helo...?

We don't have any serious anti ship capability so again anti ship ops with helos why?

Can we not accept that any naval vessel with potential will have a deck that will accept a helicopter. At this time nobody is suggesting that we have an onboard helicopter capable of ASW or AS missile strike. If the will to do so arises then the deck is there for a helicopter in need of a landing for urgent reasons such as fuel. An MRV ship without a flight deck is unthinkable and I doubt if such exists.
If we ever develop an Air Element then training procedure does include a shore based dummy deck and a moored land on barge in a local estuary. Nothing high tech. and of moderate cost.
We have to face the reasons that Navies exist and the range of craft needed including surface combat line vessels. We are unique in comparison to similar countries such as Norway, Finland, and Denmark in that we are neutral but make NO provision to enforce it.

[hptmurphy]

An MRV ship without a flight deck is unthinkable and I doubt if such exists

.

By definition any Multi Role Vessel should in the very least have a flight deck....but if you are to base a helicopter aboard ship at anytime in the future what would you propose the function of that helo be?

Unless it has a specific role, it won't be funded. Technology has overtaken that which we originally envisaged the role of helos aboard ship to be.

The NS doesn't undertake and probably won't undertake all the roles mentioned in the future so other than providing a very basic deck capability , the NS don't need a helo for a helos sake but someone using a helo might need a ship.

To take that a stage further that ship then must be able to take all size helos, probably including S92 or Merlin sized helos so now what size does the ship need to be to safely handle such machines.

The training is not a problem for basic helo ops all you need to be able to do is pump fuel and put out a fire and train a few FDOs.

We are unique in comparison to similar countries such as Norway, Finland, and Denmark in that we are neutral but make NO provision to enforce it.

And partially our reason for this uniqueness is our non alignment and lack of contractual agreement to provide that which is required to part of alignment.

Doctrine based on the reality of war fighting as opposed to ' defence ' and Aid to the Civil power being concepts we have never been able to grasp, head buried firmly in the sand and with the greater impact of social issues ever increasing, this a factor that will never be realised and therefore spending will not increase substantially as no politician has ever had a mandate to expotentially develop force projection of our defence forces.In fact the mantra has always been, 'be thankful for what you have as it can always be reduced'

So helos and ships... lip service at some point in the future but never to be given serious thought again.

[DeV]

.

By definition any Multi Role Vessel should in the very least have a flight deck....but if you are to base a helicopter aboard ship at anytime in the future what would you propose the function of that helo be?

Unless it has a specific role, it won't be funded. Technology has overtaken that which we originally envisaged the role of helos aboard ship to be.

The NS doesn't undertake and probably won't undertake all the roles mentioned in the future so other than providing a very basic deck capability , the NS don't need a helo for a helos sake but someone using a helo might need a ship.

To take that a stage further that ship then must be able to take all size helos, probably including S92 or Merlin sized helos so now what size does the ship need to be to safely handle such machines.

The training is not a problem for basic helo ops all you need to be able to do is pump fuel and put out a fire and train a few FDOs.

they have to maintain currency I assume but AC & IRCG could do that

And partially our reason for this uniqueness is our non alignment and lack of contractual agreement to provide that which is required to part of alignment.

Doctrine based on the reality of war fighting as opposed to ' defence ' and Aid to the Civil power being concepts we have never been able to grasp, head buried firmly in the sand and with the greater impact of social issues ever increasing, this a factor that will never be realised and therefore spending will not increase substantially as no politician has ever had a mandate to expotentially develop force projection of our defence forces.In fact the mantra has always been, 'be thankful for what you have as it can always be reduced'

So helos and ships... lip service at some point in the future but never to be given serious thought again.

We definitely have the doctrine, just not sufficient personnel or equipment

[Sparky42]

WBY in action again today:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0810/89...grants-rescue/

[ancientmariner]

Well done our side, however we need a tight Estimate of the Situation dealing with a resurgent Italian trained Libyan Navy/Coastguard. Clearly we need to know the extent of their controlled " Search and rescue " zone and their attitude to non NGO Naval vessels, such as ours. it is at times like this that Naval capability is paramount with clear ROE's.

[DeV]

Well done our side, however we need a tight Estimate of the Situation dealing with a resurgent Italian trained Libyan Navy/Coastguard. Clearly we need to know the extent of their controlled " Search and rescue " zone and their attitude to non NGO Naval vessels, such as ours. it is at times like this that Naval capability is paramount with clear ROE's.

Not just Italian trained, we could well be training them (part of the Op Sophia mandate)

[EUFighter]

.

Technology has overtaken that which we originally envisaged the role of helos aboard ship to be.than providing a very basic deck capability , the NS don't need a helo for a helos sake but someone using a helo might need a ship.

What technology has taken over the role of a ship based helicopter?
And why does the rest of the world not know about this wonder technology as the majority of new build of the 1800ton+ OPV's all have an on-board heli?

[EUFighter]

.
And partially our reason for this uniqueness is our non alignment and lack of contractual agreement to provide that which is required to part of alignment.

Non alignment is so misunderstood in this country, many think it means pacifism. What we forget is that while an aligned member of NATO is expected to spend 2% of GDP the reason why there are so many members is that such an alliance allows for sharing of defence costs. For a non-aligned nation they have to be capable of providing all the necessary capabilities on their own, it is a reason why non-aligned countries are expected to pay a higher percentage.