Thanks Thanks:  43
Likes Likes:  80
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 131

Thread: navy

  1. #101
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given that the AW-139's will not last forever and will need replacing would the future H160M family be the aircraft to suit us?
    The H160M being the aircraft that the Dauphin tried to be but didn't quiet make it. And would it be the aircraft that would allow us to return to naval aviation, first on the MRV and possibly later on the P50's replacements?

    H160M.jpg

  2. #102
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,173
    Post Thanks / Like
    We need to go bigger. Merlin/NH90/S92 size, though not necessarily those types (the NH90 is a particular disaster, hopefully the MTT will sort out all the teething problems with that design). Going forward though we need to determine the role a shipboard heli is expected to do. Aerial surveillance can just as easily be done by dedicated ship launched drones such as the schiebel Camcopter. If it is for carrying "ass and trash" or People and stores then bigger is better, the Dauphin size just isn't big enough. The concept of the Blue-Green/MRV/P31 replacement is to be available to deploy overseas with vehicles and troops, or act as a platform for disaster relief.
    In either case the Dauphin variant would do the job, but only just. Better off with something that has a large cabin, flat internal floor and plenty of thrust for working in less than ideal weather conditions.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  3. #103
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Given that the AW-139's will not last forever and will need replacing would the future H160M family be the aircraft to suit us?
    The H160M being the aircraft that the Dauphin tried to be but didn't quiet make it. And would it be the aircraft that would allow us to return to naval aviation, first on the MRV and possibly later on the P50's replacements?

    H160M.jpg
    Except it carries less troops than an AW139 (5 versus 10)

    Future from Airbus has to be bigger (they don’t offer anything similar sized).... from Airbus that means NH90 (20), H215M (24?) or H225M (28?)


    Seats depend on if they are troop seats, crash-worthy seats, equipment etc

  4. #104
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Except it carries less troops than an AW139 (5 versus 10)

    Future from Airbus has to be bigger (they don’t offer anything similar sized).... from Airbus that means NH90 (20), H215M (24?) or H225M (28?)


    Seats depend on if they are troop seats, crash-worthy seats, equipment etc
    Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.

  5. #105
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    We need to go bigger. Merlin/NH90/S92 size, though not necessarily those types (the NH90 is a particular disaster, hopefully the MTT will sort out all the teething problems with that design). Going forward though we need to determine the role a shipboard heli is expected to do. Aerial surveillance can just as easily be done by dedicated ship launched drones such as the schiebel Camcopter. If it is for carrying "ass and trash" or People and stores then bigger is better, the Dauphin size just isn't big enough. The concept of the Blue-Green/MRV/P31 replacement is to be available to deploy overseas with vehicles and troops, or act as a platform for disaster relief.
    In either case the Dauphin variant would do the job, but only just. Better off with something that has a large cabin, flat internal floor and plenty of thrust for working in less than ideal weather conditions.
    Actually even if the NH90 is a larger aircraft, when stowed it has a smaller footprint than the H160M as it has a proper folding tail.
    Seem to remember that the Spanish were also interested in the MITT version to replace their Sea Kings. The aft ramp does help in HADR getting goods in and people out quickly.

  6. #106
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,173
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.
    In passenger configuration, the AW139 also carries 12 passengers, plus crew. Three rows of seats 4 abreast. Not ideal for anyone other than someone with medium build, wearing shorts and T Shirt. (and having nothing in their pockets.)
    It reminds me of this clip.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. Likes EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  8. #107
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.
    Except The AW139 (or replacement) it isn’t intended for that kind of config - it is for tactical transport with kit

  9. #108
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Except The AW139 (or replacement) it isn’t intended for that kind of config - it is for tactical transport with kit
    Getting back to things Navy, I see the Goma Two are still waiting for DOD decisions. We in the military should work on the How and with What that the job could be done. By this time they should have been re-positioned to a friendlier country. In fact any of our 90m vessels could have been positioned off Tanzania by now if action was taken at first instance. Pick them up in a Tanzanian port and bring them home or drop them off in Malta or Cyprus and have the AC collect them with the CASA.

  10. #109
    Chief Casey Ryback
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    In passenger configuration, the AW139 also carries 12 passengers, plus crew. Three rows of seats 4 abreast. Not ideal for anyone other than someone with medium build, wearing shorts and T Shirt. (and having nothing in their pockets.)
    It reminds me of this clip.
    Well leave the doors off and you could get a few more passengers in .
    Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

  11. Likes EUFighter, Pegasus liked this post
  12. #110
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Getting back to things Navy, I see the Goma Two are still waiting for DOD decisions. We in the military should work on the How and with What that the job could be done. By this time they should have been re-positioned to a friendlier country. In fact any of our 90m vessels could have been positioned off Tanzania by now if action was taken at first instance. Pick them up in a Tanzanian port and bring them home or drop them off in Malta or Cyprus and have the AC collect them with the CASA.
    Or just use the Air Corps Learjet. It would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for the DoD bureaucrats.

  13. Likes na grohmiti, sofa, Flamingo liked this post
  14. #111
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Or just use the Air Corps Learjet. It would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for the DoD bureaucrats.
    For those interested it is 3000 nm to Port Said ( 8days transit from Cork) 1 day through the Suez, and another 7.5 days to Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania. Then back to Cyprus in 9 Days. If they left on the 1st May they would be in Cyprus today or early tomorrow 26th May and in Baldonnel the same day.

  15. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  16. #112
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,173
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't grey ships get priority transiting Suez also?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  17. #113
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Don't grey ships get priority transiting Suez also?
    Often smaller faster ships would go through in their own Convoy.

  18. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  19. #114
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Just pointing out that we have an accidental Navy that keeps changing operational profile every time we acquire new or replacement tonnage. The 1927 Conference was contentious on the Defended Ports issue but the Brits were offering "Imposing 800t 16kt minesweepers of the Irish County Class and would be quite suitable ceremonially and for your President's yacht" Like now, we had no money, and didn't take up the offer of the twin screw vessels. Those present were civil servants and Army Officers. We should have been asking the Brits for a couple of dozen training staff and officers to secund to Irish service and start MCM and ASW as proposed for the embryo service. Two Squadrons of the bigger vessels would have been a reasonable start.
    Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
    It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.

  20. Likes DeV liked this post
  21. #115
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    To be successful smaller militaries need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel.
    Fixed that for you and due to the small size of the DF and personnel turnover in the last 12 years it has become a major issue across the DF

  22. #116
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Fixed that for you and due to the small size of the DF and personnel turnover in the last 12 years it has become a major issue across the DF
    Agree PDF as a whole has been deconstructed however, despite C&S course, and SSC, my concern lies with the area of my former expertise. It is time to stop closing capability avenues and closing down functions at the whim of simpler less expensive choices. Defence and deterrence has to be on equal footing to HADR capability as on occasion disasters can also be man made.

  23. #117
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Agree PDF as a whole has been deconstructed however, despite C&S course, and SSC, my concern lies with the area of my former expertise. It is time to stop closing capability avenues and closing down functions at the whim of simpler less expensive choices. Defence and deterrence has to be on equal footing to HADR capability as on occasion disasters can also be man made.
    Not necessarily what I mean. We have very well qualified people who have a long training lead time. The major issues are they leave the DF too soon, they get moved around too much (rotation, overseas, promotion, course, college, etc etc). That then leads to burnout, work-life balance issues, double/triple jobbing, etc. It also leads to a critical loss of experience and mentoring.

    For example, we have people who have to transfer corps (And/or Bde) to get promoted

  24. #118
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Not necessarily what I mean. We have very well qualified people who have a long training lead time. The major issues are they leave the DF too soon, they get moved around too much (rotation, overseas, promotion, course, college, etc etc). That then leads to burnout, work-life balance issues, double/triple jobbing, etc. It also leads to a critical loss of experience and mentoring.

    For example, we have people who have to transfer corps (And/or Bde) to get promoted
    I agree that all of those perchance happen in a volunteer service. Mil organisations were always expert in calculating requirements for person and machine, and provision for reserves , stores, and replenishment as it arises. Failure to see the inevitable and not understanding the loss of expertise and self worth also create conditions for personnel to move on or out. Promotion can be troublesome especially at higher levels where SO's from any Branch can go from a desk job to a Brigadier or higher.
    Mentoring is a huge part of Naval Service life especially in matters of Safety and how things work that are not available for hands on experience ashore.
    When a ship sails , peace or war, she is pretty well equipped equally at full operational levels. Everybody from junior to highest levels must tune in to how things work and learn to use and maintain them. It is important then that the Mission tools remain static, and be modernised as required, so that capability remains constant, at least. Binning hardware every decade or so leads to what we have now.

  25. Likes Shaqra liked this post
  26. #119
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
    It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.
    The current biggest treat to the development and integrity of the Irish Navy and the continued existence of the Maritime College of Ireland is the Cork Port Company and its unitary expansion plans in the smallest corner of Cork harbour. In their initial submission they included Haulbowline as an area of expansion, along with Marina point and Cork Dockyard. Even now the plan is right up to the boundary of the NMCI so that the work area will be next to classrooms. The Department responsible for Marine needs to take control and ensure equitable outcomes for sitting traditional tenants. The plans are minuscule when taken against international ship sizes, and constricted so, due to limited foreshore and accesses. Even a small modern port needs a kilometre of container berthage, more berthage for small coastal vessels, berthage for Cruise trade, berthage for official visiting ships of all types, and berths for recreational mariners. In the Far east quite modest countries have 2.5 miles of berthage. Between Cork and Waterford city we are scrapping that amount. Make Ireland Small again!!

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  28. #120
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,173
    Post Thanks / Like
    NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
    I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  29. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, DeV liked this post
  30. #121
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
    I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.
    Given the figures I heard regard drop out rates for commercial cadets during placement over the last year or so maybe being next to a working port might be a bonus rather than a bad thing.

  31. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  32. #122
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Given the figures I heard regard drop out rates for commercial cadets during placement over the last year or so maybe being next to a working port might be a bonus rather than a bad thing.
    Any chance of bigger NS cadet classes to improve that situation?

  33. #123
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Any chance of bigger NS cadet classes to improve that situation?
    Think at least 1 did move over, most I heard about dropped out of the area altogether.

  34. #124
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
    I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.
    If you look at Cork Port Review leading to the piecemeal development at Ringaskiddy it is clear that the ball has been dropped. They are moving from City quays 1.276 k to a nascent berthage of about .485k with planned building work in hand and yet to be started. The current berthage was to manage 3 ships of 2000teu alongside. That is laughable as medium Ships have 5000 teu while larger vessels of post-Panamax and New-Panamax are up to 10,000teu's and beyond. The intention to increase berthage on the current berth footprint is in filling Ringaskiddy bay and moving traffic closer to Haulbowline Island and the College.

    The planned positions for increased berthage are Oyster Bank, beside Maritime College and Naval base, and Curlane Bank South of Spike Island that may include a bridge link to Spike from the Haulbowline access road with years of infill and construction and of course a busy Amenity area. They should have developed the East side of the Harbour with ready access to deep water and a bare fore shore.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 16th June 2020 at 19:08.

  35. #125
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,173
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not sure where you are getting the Oyster bank and Curlane bank plans from, but these were alternative options given to Ringaskiddy redevelopment. They were ruled out on a number of engineering and environmental grounds. The East of the harbour suffers from a glut of underwater cables and outflows, as well as a very poor road infastructure. The R630 is already in bits from the volume of traffic just to the refinery (60 trucks an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year on average). The decommissioning of the older Aghada generating station will see the site used for Battery storage to support the grid coming from the newer Aghada station, the BGE power station next door to the Refinery, and the Wind turbines in Crocane.
    No matter what infastructure you provide for Container ships, you'll not see anything near 10000 TEU in Cork. We don't have the demand for ships of that size, while we continue to serve large feeder container ships to other Irish Ports.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  36. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, Sparky42, DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •