Thanks Thanks:  991
Likes Likes:  2,003
Dislikes Dislikes:  49
Page 119 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121 ... LastLast
Results 2,951 to 2,975 of 3026
  1. #2951
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Given how long it's been since the RFI, surely the market has changed a good bit since then?
    Not really. The only vessel of type that has entered service since is Canterbury. Other nations have expressed interest in the concept, and the design houses have had time to come up with options as a result.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  2. #2952
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Do you need a new RFI? Surely the last process identified what is available on the market, and the RFT would permit a builder to design and build to fit a more specified criteria than that seen on the RFP.
    It was done 14 years ago, and just this week Bulgaria order to Multi Mission Modular Patrol vessels from Lurssen, what they look like I don't know yet but thing have moved on. The RNZN have had some experience with HMS Canterbury and modifications. Several Pacific Rims countries have order Strategic Support Vessels or are in the process of ordering some. While I still hope that the VARD 7-313 has been designed for us given the amount of time that has past since the original process was started it would be good to see what is on the market.

  3. Likes DeV liked this post
  4. #2953
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    So has it gone to tender?
    No still in planning.

    It would be quite contemptible to tender it at this stage given the manpower crisis and that half the fleet is tied up.
    Money needs to be invested in a genuine personnel retention package, accommodation and whatever else is needed to bring the numbers back up to a healthy level before any new ship is ordered. When P64 entered service two ships had to be tied up to crew it and things have gotten worse since then.

  5. #2954
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    No still in planning.

    It would be quite contemptible to tender it at this stage given the manpower crisis and that half the fleet is tied up.
    Money needs to be invested in a genuine personnel retention package, accommodation and whatever else is needed to bring the numbers back up to a healthy level before any new ship is ordered. When P64 entered service two ships had to be tied up to crew it and things have gotten worse since then.
    Wholeheartedly disagree. This is a long term plan. This is planning for something which will happen in 5 years time, whether the staffing shortage was there or not, the inevitable retirement of L.E. Eithne, the last ship built in the state.
    You cannot put off major equipment purchases in future because of events happening today. If you do, and on reaching 2025, realise you have the crew, but hey, Eithne can't go to sea because of her hull/machinery being past it, then it will take you 5 years without any capability before you get it back, and another 5 years to get it up to operational again.
    Did the Air Corps decide to put off replacing the Casa because of Pilot shortages? Likewise for the Cessna 172!
    When Eithne was built, the NS was also short of crew, it held a huge recruiting campaign, and took on 100 extra ratings before the ship entered service. These people were able to fill vacancies on other ships to allow experienced crew to go aboard and bring the ship into service. Some of P64's crew were it's crew a year before it even left Appledore! The idea of a helicopter capable Naval vessel in Irish service was actually a useful recruiting tool at the time.

    To use the phrase from a movie, "If you build it they will come".
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  6. #2955
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    571
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Wholeheartedly disagree. This is a long term plan. This is planning for something which will happen in 5 years time, whether the staffing shortage was there or not, the inevitable retirement of L.E. Eithne, the last ship built in the state.
    You cannot put off major equipment purchases in future because of events happening today. If you do, and on reaching 2025, realise you have the crew, but hey, Eithne can't go to sea because of her hull/machinery being past it, then it will take you 5 years without any capability before you get it back, and another 5 years to get it up to operational again.
    Did the Air Corps decide to put off replacing the Casa because of Pilot shortages? Likewise for the Cessna 172!
    When Eithne was built, the NS was also short of crew, it held a huge recruiting campaign, and took on 100 extra ratings before the ship entered service. These people were able to fill vacancies on other ships to allow experienced crew to go aboard and bring the ship into service. Some of P64's crew were it's crew a year before it even left Appledore! The idea of a helicopter capable Naval vessel in Irish service was actually a useful recruiting tool at the time.

    To use the phrase from a movie, "If you build it they will come".

    The perfect answer..... ????????

    Saved me loads of typing

  7. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  8. #2956
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Doesn’t necessarily have to go to RFI could do straight to RFP or RFT

    But the information provided for the EPV is now out of date

  9. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  10. #2957
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Doesn’t necessarily have to go to RFI could do straight to RFP or RFT

    But the information provided for the EPV is now out of date
    And people in the NS have been actively drawing up their requirements based on what's available, and the NZ experience. We already have the brochures, we just need to see who will give us the best deal.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  11. #2958
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Wholeheartedly disagree. This is a long term plan. This is planning for something which will happen in 5 years time, whether the staffing shortage was there or not, the inevitable retirement of L.E. Eithne, the last ship built in the state.
    You cannot put off major equipment purchases in future because of events happening today. If you do, and on reaching 2025, realise you have the crew, but hey, Eithne can't go to sea because of her hull/machinery being past it, then it will take you 5 years without any capability before you get it back, and another 5 years to get it up to operational again.
    Did the Air Corps decide to put off replacing the Casa because of Pilot shortages? Likewise for the Cessna 172!
    When Eithne was built, the NS was also short of crew, it held a huge recruiting campaign, and took on 100 extra ratings before the ship entered service. These people were able to fill vacancies on other ships to allow experienced crew to go aboard and bring the ship into service. Some of P64's crew were it's crew a year before it even left Appledore! The idea of a helicopter capable Naval vessel in Irish service was actually a useful recruiting tool at the time.

    To use the phrase from a movie, "If you build it they will come".
    The priority needs to be personnel retention, first and foremost. Without it, in 2025 what will be left? The NS is losing the equivalent of a ship's crew every year in personnel. Tendering for a new ship without a genuine effort to retain personnel is a disaster waiting to happen. Particularly for a vessel that will likely be crew heavy.
    Trying to recruit your way out of the problem hasn't worked with the NS losing 20% of its strength since the P60s started to arrive.
    The Air Corps hasn't indefinitely grounded aircraft due to lack of pilots.

  12. #2959
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The priority needs to be personnel retention, first and foremost. Without it, in 2025 what will be left? The NS is losing the equivalent of a ship's crew every year in personnel. Tendering for a new ship without a genuine effort to retain personnel is a disaster waiting to happen. Particularly for a vessel that will likely be crew heavy.
    Trying to recruit your way out of the problem hasn't worked with the NS losing 20% of its strength since the P60s started to arrive.
    The Air Corps hasn't indefinitely grounded aircraft due to lack of pilots.
    The Air Corps has no aircraft operating 24 hours/365 days a year, and is unable to maintain 24 hr ATC.
    he ship will not be crew heavy, no more than Eithne was when she entered service (and she was expected to have a crew of 100).
    The recruitment issue can be fixed easily by govt. If we didn't have arseholes holding BOTH the position of SecGen DoD and Minister with responsibility for defence for the last 3 years, this could have been sorted long ago. Mistakes were made, luckily we had the right DF leadership in office. Unfortunately it cannot be fixed overnight, but we are going in the right direction.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  13. Likes Rocinante, ias liked this post
  14. #2960
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Afaik AC ATC is back 24/7

  15. #2961
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    it held a huge recruiting campaign, and took on 100 extra ratings before the ship entered service
    110, I was number 16 on the list.,

    if and when we do order this type we need to learn from the biggest mistake that was made around Eithne, not having a second unit in the class, . Build one, run it for 12 months and build a second one. If it is to be such an important asset , what happens when its out of service for refits etc.


    I know its a little pre emptive but future proofing is the key
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  16. Thanks na grohmiti, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes Herald, ias, CTU, Tempest liked this post
  17. #2962
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Afaik AC ATC is back 24/7
    Benefiting who?
    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. #2963
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The Air Corps has no aircraft operating 24 hours/365 days a year, and is unable to maintain 24 hr ATC.
    he ship will not be crew heavy, no more than Eithne was when she entered service (and she was expected to have a crew of 100).
    The recruitment issue can be fixed easily by govt. If we didn't have arseholes holding BOTH the position of SecGen DoD and Minister with responsibility for defence for the last 3 years, this could have been sorted long ago. Mistakes were made, luckily we had the right DF leadership in office. Unfortunately it cannot be fixed overnight, but we are going in the right direction.
    That's not accurate in regards to the Air Corps.
    If the Air Corps indefinitely grounded aircraft due to lack of pilots then I'd be the first one to say no additional aircraft should be ordered unit retention issues were sorted. But that is not the case.
    The real issue isn't recruitment, its retention. While most of the General Staff are good leaders the current CoS has been part of the problem, spending the last five years constantly whitewashing and denying there is even a manpower crisis. At least the current FOCNS isn't afraid to make hard decisions.
    It's still a long way from starting to improve.

  19. #2964
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Honkeys never liked him.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  20. #2965
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,007
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    110, I was number 16 on the list.,

    if and when we do order this type we need to learn from the biggest mistake that was made around Eithne, not having a second unit in the class, . Build one, run it for 12 months and build a second one. If it is to be such an important asset , what happens when its out of service for refits etc.


    I know its a little pre emptive but future proofing is the key
    Without question that would be ideal, but I expect as soon as this goes for contract, there's going to be screaming from the usual suspects in the Daíl and Media about the "€200 million" and how it could be used to magically fix "whatever", I can't see anyone being willing to defend spending another 200 million even though as you say it makes total sense. Also if it/they are going to be helicopter capable, buy the ****ing Helicopters!

  21. Likes ias, CTU, DeV liked this post
  22. #2966
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Without question that would be ideal, but I expect as soon as this goes for contract, there's going to be screaming from the usual suspects in the Daíl and Media about the "€200 million" and how it could be used to magically fix "whatever", I can't see anyone being willing to defend spending another 200 million even though as you say it makes total sense. Also if it/they are going to be helicopter capable, buy the ****ing Helicopters!
    Another €200m? How much does it cost to design a ship of this nature? A lot, a large proportion of the cost will be related to the design effort. This is normally reduced by basing the design on an existing one but even then the costs are significant. So of the €200m up to €50m could be related to the design, testing and qualification efforts.

    But to get the second vessel we have to get real about defence, Bulgaria just ordered 2 new multi purpose modular patrol vessels, cost point = €503m. Bulgaria the place of cheap skiing holidays, the place you go when Spain and Turkey are too expensive for your summer hols.

    Maybe we need to sell the costs differently, so lets say €400m for two vessels, and that they will stay in service for 40 years, that is €10m per year, even with running costs this capability is likely to be around €20m per year.

  23. #2967
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Without question that would be ideal, but I expect as soon as this goes for contract, there's going to be screaming from the usual suspects in the Daíl and Media about the "€200 million" and how it could be used to magically fix "whatever", I can't see anyone being willing to defend spending another 200 million even though as you say it makes total sense. Also if it/they are going to be helicopter capable, buy the ****ing Helicopters!
    Doesn't have to be 'our' helos. Usually international missions have many contributors. imagine if we had the capability to take helos during OP Pontus, plenty of Helo operators could have used such a platform.

    If they want to sell it on the level of an international capable vessel, need to look at what makes it attractive to operate along side it.

    "€200 million"
    About the same cost as the addition of a helo pad on top of the Childrens hospital
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 23rd November 2020 at 22:21.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  24. Likes na grohmiti, EUFighter, Rocinante, ias liked this post
  25. #2968
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The Air Corps has no aircraft operating 24 hours/365 days a year, and is unable to maintain 24 hr ATC.
    he ship will not be crew heavy, no more than Eithne was when she entered service (and she was expected to have a crew of 100).
    The recruitment issue can be fixed easily by govt. If we didn't have arseholes holding BOTH the position of SecGen DoD and Minister with responsibility for defence for the last 3 years, this could have been sorted long ago. Mistakes were made, luckily we had the right DF leadership in office. Unfortunately it cannot be fixed overnight, but we are going in the right direction.
    Part of bringing the P31 to commission was drawing up and submitting crew requirements. As far as I remember with full crew, air element, and trainees on board the figure would reach 68. With crew only the figure was more like 55. If you add SGR to the 55 you might reach 75. The only thing that moves to increased spending moments are " Events" or perceived requirements of various memberships or alliances. EU and partnerships maybe.

  26. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  27. #2969
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wasn’t it 85 Max crew?
    72 plus 7/8 AC ?

  28. #2970
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Wasn’t it 85 Max crew?
    72 plus 7/8 AC ?
    The Gentleman is referring to the initial proposed requirements.
    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
  30. #2971
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Wasn’t it 85 Max crew?
    72 plus 7/8 AC ?
    Thats was the proposed figures but at times it was in excess of this or as it nowadays well below this. The establishment was for 72 all ranks but in 86/87/88 it ran above this as a lot of the original specialists were finishing their sea time and their replacements were aboard for months at a time working into their roles. Mostly among the junior officer ranks and tech people. The bridge used to get a bit crowded and I remember 13 seamen of all ranks on the focsle for Harbour stations one morning where 4 lines men, a Leading hand and the Bosun would have been enough. The Focsle party officer also had an understudy.

    And we still had duties one in three alongside due to the requirement for sentries caused by GOD getting his minions to carry out a raid in the basin one night . (RIP GOD) ...was a member here a few years ago.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

  31. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  32. #2972
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Wasn’t it 85 Max crew?
    72 plus 7/8 AC ?
    I certainly know it's higher than previous ships with the addition of Elec. Officer and a few other extra's, including a Writer. It can be solved by examining a CS4 from 1984/5 to get the Established figure plus the Seagoing replacements. We took close to 100 on the trip to Bermuda, NY, and Boston. They made possible the entertainment/dinners at all key ports and well earned their passage. Your 72 may be quite close.
    In the matter of accommodating a 10 tonne helicopter landing on the MRV, it seems to me that a ship of the proposed size and tonnage should cater for most helicopters that operate over water and particularly those that operate in the offshore areas like the North Sea. It is a bit of a shock that a standard small ship helicopter such as the MERLIN at 15tonnes would be excluded. Lenght with Rotor spinning 22.8m.

  33. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  34. #2973
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Exactly, if you are going to the trouble at all, may as well make it big enough for all the naval types we would expect to work with. Even a Seahawk fully loaded would be over the 10T limit. Canterbury has 2 spots, both capable of taking the Seasprite, MTOW just over 8T each.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #2974
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Exactly, if you are going to the trouble at all, may as well make it big enough for all the naval types we would expect to work with. Even a Seahawk fully loaded would be over the 10T limit. Canterbury has 2 spots, both capable of taking the Seasprite, MTOW just over 8T each.
    The CANT though can only handle a single NH-90 or Chinook at a time for deck safety reasons. This operational limitation is one of the things, like necessity of a well deck that the acquisition of the enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will address to future proof the vessel.

  37. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  38. #2975
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    The CANT though can only handle a single NH-90 or Chinook at a time for deck safety reasons. This operational limitation is one of the things, like necessity of a well deck that the acquisition of the enhanced multi-role sealift vessel to complement HMNZS Canterbury will address to future proof the vessel.
    The imperative in getting the deck right is coupled with the heavy landing of a helicopter causing complete collapse of landing gear and NOT piercing the deck. Also all drains from the flight deck have to be fireproofed to allow aviation fuel combustion to be dispensed without torching the below deck compartments. If we were to offer respite to a chinook sized aircraft then the deck needs to handle+/- 30 tonnes. If we leave the Chinook out, we must provide for AUW of 20 tonnes to have some versatility

  39. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, na grohmiti, hptmurphy, Turkey, Tempest liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 23:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 23:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 01:19

Posting Permissions

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