Thanks Thanks:  21
Likes Likes:  52
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 74

Thread: navy

  1. #26
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Not forgetting maintenance heavy means personnel required
    The Navy must know what it NEEDS and not be led or cajoled by Ordnance Corps or DOD. 30mm armament is ok if it is in a 360deg format with two or more controlled units and backed up with a missile system. Spare L70 should be vehicle mounted to be deployable at any location in the country, assuming that ammunition is available.
    It struck me, with ports in short supply we need to identify withdrawal locations for our ships in times of emergency- Killary harbour etc.

  2. #27
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The Navy must know what it NEEDS and not be led or cajoled by Ordnance Corps or DOD. 30mm armament is ok if it is in a 360deg format with two or more controlled units and backed up with a missile system. Spare L70 should be vehicle mounted to be deployable at any location in the country, assuming that ammunition is available.
    It struck me, with ports in short supply we need to identify withdrawal locations for our ships in times of emergency- Killary harbour etc.
    Disagree with L40/70 s being available in any format. If we begin to become amenable to retrograde equipment we may fall victim to our own shortsightedness. The willingness to adapt and modify has always been our down fall...World War two equipment still in use up to the 1970s in some cases becauses someone repeatedly refused to go out on a limb and discard it.

    Too many stop gap arrangement in place, if someone in Naval Planning decreees with justifable back up that we need a 30mm turret with missile capability, there should be no step back until it is achieved.
    Time for another break I think......

  3. Likes na grohmiti, sofa, Herald liked this post
  4. #28
    bosun
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    cork
    Posts
    1,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    no one there to clean them ...oh wait loads of junior officers...

  5. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  6. #29
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Disagree with L40/70 s being available in any format.

    Too many stop gap arrangement in place, if someone in Naval Planning decreees with justifable back up that we need a 30mm turret with missile capability, there should be no step back until it is achieved.
    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. In 2019 terms if you spend 60m plus on ships you must invest in it's Defence . The doctrine on Close in Defence requires controlled high rates of fire and missile systems . We should also add elements of offence such as support fire by a higher calibre weapon and NSM. Some systems on offer are more easily retrofitted and do not need deck penetrations . Matters are easier if the correct type of Radars are fitted at the outset to provide tracking and FC data. A bit like buying the cot when you know a baby is due!!

  7. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  8. #30
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just surmising that other budget restricted combatants stick fairly big calibre units onto trucks and use them in multirole su/air modes
    Third world 'technicals' are a far cry from wheel based artillery that South Africa and the Czech Republic use.

    We should also add elements of offence such as support fire by a higher calibre weapon

    Put a 127mm gun on a vessel that we already have problems fitting with 76mm, is a bit like buy the pram for twins when you know you barely have the budget for a single baby
    Time for another break I think......

  9. #31
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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....

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  11. #32
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  12. #33
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  13. Thanks na grohmiti, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, Flamingo liked this post
  14. #34
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  15. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  16. #35
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  17. #36
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  18. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  19. #37
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  20. #38
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  21. #39
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,093
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  22. #40
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  23. #41
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  24. #42
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    955
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  25. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo, Tempest liked this post
  26. #43
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  28. #44
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  29. #45
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  30. #46
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    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.
    Delete first word "Their" and replace with " There ". By the way does anybody know what exactly is being done with the Roisin. The Mandays working on her are eyewatering . It is more a half life rebuild??

  31. #47
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,345
    Post Thanks / Like
    Were all the initial problems she had post launch rectified? I.understand there were numerous changes made to Niamh, to rectify issues encountered with Roisin. That said, on either vessel it is almost impossible to remain on the bridge wing in certain winds while in motion. The wind noise is too uncomfortable. Simple aerodynamics I think. The box shaped funnel whacks the wind horribly.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  32. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
  33. #48
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,386
    Post Thanks / Like

  34. #49
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,639
    Post Thanks / Like
    Some of the comments are head bangingly stupid.

  35. Likes DeV, Shaqra, sofa liked this post
  36. #50
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Some of the comments are head bangingly stupid.
    Par for the course on The Journal (and every other news site).Its mind numbing when people get animated over 250k which really is such a small amount of money in government terms (it'll only get you a quarter of a printer after all). And its the same format every time,

    "We need more money spent on health/welfare/houses/etc....., sure what do the army/navy/air corps do anyway? Lets disband/downsize/privatise or get the guards to do it",

    Surely we have to be one of the only countries in the world where this argument persists regarding defence?

  37. Likes 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
  •