Thanks Thanks:  889
Likes Likes:  1,833
Dislikes Dislikes:  47
Page 111 of 113 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113 LastLast
Results 2,751 to 2,775 of 2823
  1. #2751
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,767
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    If we only ever did what was rational we would not have got very far as a species. Was it rational to go to the moon? No, but we did and even if there are some who think it never happened it was a large step for mankind. Never give up!
    Given that that push for the Moon has crippled NASA ever since I wouldn't really use it as the best example. Like it or not the Global economy is pretty ****ed at the moment with few tools left in the toolbox. Even if the Fiscal Conservatives in the EU can be bounced into the stimulus plan that some want any funds we get are going elsewhere, and as usual defence is going to be far down the list..."you want to spend 250 million on a ship! That should go to Health!" And in reality given that there's still so many unknowns about this bloody disease we are very likely to see further waves and economic disruption well into next year which is going to demand continue extreme spending in the Health sector, as stockpiles will need to be built up and sustained, more staff kept on for examples.

    Sadly with the crush on the economy and the already known manpower issues I can quite easily see DOD telling the NS make do with the ships you have, Eithne will be replaced at a future date.

  2. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  3. #2752
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Given that that push for the Moon has crippled NASA ever since I wouldn't really use it as the best example. Like it or not the Global economy is pretty ****ed at the moment with few tools left in the toolbox. Even if the Fiscal Conservatives in the EU can be bounced into the stimulus plan that some want any funds we get are going elsewhere, and as usual defence is going to be far down the list..."you want to spend 250 million on a ship! That should go to Health!" And in reality given that there's still so many unknowns about this bloody disease we are very likely to see further waves and economic disruption well into next year which is going to demand continue extreme spending in the Health sector, as stockpiles will need to be built up and sustained, more staff kept on for examples.

    Sadly with the crush on the economy and the already known manpower issues I can quite easily see DOD telling the NS make do with the ships you have, Eithne will be replaced at a future date.
    Whatever budget emerges, the duty of those spending budgets, is to ensure it enhances the capability , welfare, and ethos of a Military Force. If we continually equip with cheap basic options then we will ever be coat holders at the match. When the P20 first emerged, the CS told us it wasn't getting a gun as the EU would not pay for it, as the vessel was for FP. Ordnance saved our embarrassment by installing the 40mm Bofors. There was similar with P31 but money was found by Carl O'Sullivan, the then Chief of Staff. Civil servants should have no part in deciding weapon systems other than processing the paper work.

  4. Likes Shaqra, EUFighter, Tempest liked this post
  5. #2753
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes the NS was able to use (civilian) ships to land not insignificant amount of troops as well as arty and armoured cars (lashed to the deck and removed via crane at quay wall) During the Civil War.

    But the equipment that an Irish infantry coy / Bn minus is expected to deploy operational with has changed greatly in the last Circa 100 years. Could it be replicated now? more than likely (if you are willing to risk the personnel, equipment and ship in the same way).

    The NS has been used to transport Infantry plns On a fairly regular basis (and at least once a Coy Gp) in other to allow troops to exercise in joint Ops.






    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It should not be too much of a surprise as most of the fighting up to an during the civil war was land based. This meant that most of the commanders who would later become TD's only had experience of fighting a land war. There were still many Irish in the RN (even to this day some) but they had no influence on how the military developed. In fact if we contrast the BA and RN we see some of the roots of the problem. In the British Army there were "Irish" regiments, these were visibly Irish. The RN on the other hand did not have specific "Irish" ships, Irish men who join would be allocated to different ships. If they were lucky the ship might be in Kingstown or Queenstown but there was no reason why it could just not be on the other side of the world. Thus a "separate" Irish naval identity never developed the way it did with the Army regiments.

    Much of our naval tradition has been in the service of others either the RN or another countries navy. Mention Admiral Brown in Buenos Aires and you will find some who know who he was and what he did, do the same today in Wexford not so many. The same can go for many like Rear Admiral Beaufort, every sailor knows the scale but few know he was Irish. That is a bit of the problem, most of the great achievements of Irish naval personnel were for others and so not given the recognition. Even at the great British victory of Trafalgar, of the 18,000 sailors on the British side 3600 were Irish (20%). Yet that tradition of a seafaring nation is not something that is visible today.
    Or because the NS is arguably the youngest of the 3 branches of the DF
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Whatever budget emerges, the duty of those spending budgets, is to ensure it enhances the capability , welfare, and ethos of a Military Force. If we continually equip with cheap basic options then we will ever be coat holders at the match. When the P20 first emerged, the CS told us it wasn't getting a gun as the EU would not pay for it, as the vessel was for FP. Ordnance saved our embarrassment by installing the 40mm Bofors. There was similar with P31 but money was found by Carl O'Sullivan, the then Chief of Staff. Civil servants should have no part in deciding weapon systems other than processing the paper work.
    Unfortunately they do

    Like it or not only Government (with DoD complying) can change that.

    What the DF gets is what is left out of the Defence Vote (To run, maintain and purchase) after the following has been deducted (in this order):
    - Army (DF) Pensions
    - DoD pay, allowances, Department running costs
    - DF pay & allowances

    Then and only then can it buy rations, POL, clothing, stationary, PCs and far down the list comes new/additional equipment

  6. #2754
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    Actually the ability to land troops by sea was practiced on a number of occasions in the 1990s onwards you can even see it on YouTube. Defence planning in the late 1980s identified vulnerable catholic communities in Antrim and in particular the ards peninsular in case of the breakdown of civil society in Northern Ireland in the wake of a British withdrawal.

    I'm well aware of what's needed but talking about the civil war is Farsical
    Do you mean defence planning to land troops in Northern Ireland by sea?

    Do you have a source for that?

    And was there also defence planning to defend isolated and vulnerable Protestant communities in the event of a British withdrawal?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  7. #2755
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Do you mean defence planning to land troops in Northern Ireland by sea?

    Do you have a source for that?

    And was there also defence planning to defend isolated and vulnerable Protestant communities in the event of a British withdrawal?
    Hi spider

    the best source for Irish defence planning in the late 1980s is Tom hodson "the college", which goes up to 1990 roughly. The planners were heavily influenced by the Austrian Cold War concept of zonal defence, holding strategically important locations and using light and mobile forces to harass opfor outside of those areas. It's available on Amazon for 20 sterling or your library should be able to get you a copy.

    Had safe areas being set up in the event of British withdrawal leading to civil strife in Northern Ireland it goes without saying that those of all communities would have enjoyed the protection of the defence forces had they requested it

  8. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #2756
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    Hi spider

    the best source for Irish defence planning in the late 1980s is Tom hodson "the college", which goes up to 1990 roughly. The planners were heavily influenced by the Austrian Cold War concept of zonal defence, holding strategically important locations and using light and mobile forces to harass opfor outside of those areas. It's available on Amazon for 20 sterling or your library should be able to get you a copy.

    Had safe areas being set up in the event of British withdrawal leading to civil strife in Northern Ireland it goes without saying that those of all communities would have enjoyed the protection of the defence forces had they requested it
    Hi Paul,

    Thanks for the heads up - I just managed to secure a copy. It covers the period 1930-2000.

    Hopefully it'll arrive before next week as I'm out of the country for 7 months after that. Look forward to it though, looks like a great read for a long flight.

    You haven't really answered my question though; you state (in the context of this thread) that planning was put in place to relieve vulnerable Catholic communities in Northern Ireland (by sea).

    What I'd like to know is whether any such contingencies were planned for (by land sea or air), for example, Protestants in South Armagh, East Tyrone or Londonderry City? I'm genuinely interested in Irish Military thinking in that period. I've read Dan Harvey's book, and it doesn't allude to any of this, rather the North was a British problem and the Irish Army's role was to protect The State, that is The Republic of Ireland.

    Remember, this was the 80s; 150 tons of arms landed by PIRA...they posed a far bigger threat than loyalist paramilitaries ever did at any stage in the conflict.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  10. #2757
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Hi Paul,

    Thanks for the heads up - I just managed to secure a copy. It covers the period 1930-2000.

    Hopefully it'll arrive before next week as I'm out of the country for 7 months after that. Look forward to it though, looks like a great read for a long flight.

    You haven't really answered my question though; you state (in the context of this thread) that planning was put in place to relieve vulnerable Catholic communities in Northern Ireland (by sea).

    What I'd like to know is whether any such contingencies were planned for (by land sea or air), for example, Protestants in South Armagh, East Tyrone or Londonderry City? I'm genuinely interested in Irish Military thinking in that period. I've read Dan Harvey's book, and it doesn't allude to any of this, rather the North was a British problem and the Irish Army's role was to protect The State, that is The Republic of Ireland.

    Remember, this was the 80s; 150 tons of arms landed by PIRA...they posed a far bigger threat than loyalist paramilitaries ever did at any stage in the conflict.
    I was in NS from 1961 to 1992 and managed to run a CMS, 2 OPV's, 1 Old ex -ILCommissioners vessel, and a HPV, never in my Service were we appraised of any planning or contingency that might involve landing troops. I did various college courses including one at Staff command level and the matter never surfaced. It is possible it was on a political wish list which can be scary, during the Cuban Missile crisis , our Corvette had its magazine stuffed with HE and a full load of DC and arming pistols, and we were told to stand by for war if the Russians attacked The US or didn't turn back the vessels loaded with Missiles. If politicians want such capabilities then they must provide the hardware at the required response levels.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 28th April 2020 at 00:24.

  11. Thanks EUFighter, spider, Flamingo thanked for this post
  12. #2758
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ancientmariner;474982]
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post

    This kind of exercise is interesting. It presupposes the selection for choice is the only pick list available . It also encourages choices from a higher echelon's production.
    My own view is that the original genesis of the Naval Service which was anti-submarine and anti-AA based, followed by accidental excursion into MW (affordability era ), while at the same time carrying out normal Naval duties of SFP, was the best Defensive route to maintain. The ship change during own build phase gleaned our shore establishment schools of ASW, AA Dome, Torpedoes, Depth Charges etc. My own choice would be to add as many elements required by an Atlantic based island as possible to our four bigger ships covering AA , A/fast boat. ASW. Acquire smaller sortie craft as a training Squadron for younger officers and reserve training. Also acquire an MRV to do all those things already hypothesised with ability to act as Mother to all vessels including Training Squadron and major diving Tasks. At this time we can do elements of Police and HADR with some acquired surveillance by drones , MPA, and AIS Civilian. Our biggest challenge is to think Navy and maintain avenues to achieve that goal. It is crucial that the Techs support goals and not bin things that are difficult or discomforting to the norm.
    The mods need to the P60's to give them some form of AA , A/fast boat. ASW would be substantial, but some major reworking of vessels has been done before the RN with their Type15/16 frigates and the USN with the FRAM destroyers. Basically it would involve going from a basic OPV to something more like a corvette. Systems that would be needed in order of priority could be as follows:

    (1) ESM system: relatively low cost passive detection system, would warm of radar tracking etc.
    (2) X-band 3d radar: as weight would be always an issue a compact radar like the Saab Giraffe 1x, gives a range of 75km and can be used for weapon cueing.
    (3) Decoy system such as the Terma SKWS or Rheinmetall MASS
    (4) Upgrade of FCS, replacement of the EO system with the Sea Eagle FCRO (radar and electro optical fire control system) from Chess Dynamics.
    (5) CMS: A Combat Management System would be required to fusion all the information into a tactical picture.
    (6) Replacement of the Rhinos with a modern RWS. The rate of fire of the Rhinos is good but they lack a modern control system for combating fast small craft. Something like the MLG27 or something similar.
    (7) Hull Mounted Sonar: to give a basic underwater picture, would be a major modification but the minimum needed to get any form of ASW capability.
    (8) 2-4 fixed tubes for Lightweight ASW torpedo. Currently in the West only ASW torpedoes are being manufactured, no-one makes depth charges even if some countries have them in stock still and the Swedish ASW 600 ASW rocket launcher is also no longer in production.
    (9) CIWS: to give the vessel an active defence system, either a Phalanx or SeaRAM system as they can be dismounted quickly thus the requirement could be for 2 systems rather than 4 (need not be new builds). The OTO Melara Strales system requires a lot more integration into the system sensor and CMS system.
    (10) AA missile system, best candidate would be the MBDA Simbad-RC system, although Saab might be able to offer something based on the RBS70NG

    Cost would be somewhere around €200-240m (ex-VAT) to cover all four vessels. Crewing would increase so this would need to be accommodated also.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 28th April 2020 at 08:21.

  13. #2759
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi spider

    Planning in the late 1980s was essentially defensive, it was recognised that the fantasians ( who were better armed and equipped) had the ability to undertake offensive operations into the republic and it was considered highly likely that they would. Hence planning was initially defensive and influenced by Cold War Austrian doctrine which would have seen the creation of a number of defensive zones along the border and light forces would make best use of terrain between the secure zones to harass the fantasians. So to answer the question there were no plans to help anybody north of the border as the df assumed that it would be essentially on the defensive from the fantasians for a number of months

    However in this scenario were staff planning and contained a high degree of largely theoretical planning assumptions for example hodson points out that planners put a surprising amount of effort into the discussion as to whether or not mbt should be placed in brigades or concentrated a regimental level which would make more sense if we actually had any

  14. #2760
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,139
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I was in NS from 1961 to 1992 and managed to run a CMS, 2 OPV's, 1 Old ex -ILCommissioners vessel, and a HPV, never in my Service were we appraised of any planning or contingency that might involve landing troops. I did various college courses including one at Staff command level and the matter never surfaced. It is possible it was on a political wish list which can be scary, during the Cuban Missile crisis , our Corvette had its magazine stuffed with HE and a full load of DC and arming pistols, and we were told to stand by for war if the Russians attacked The US or didn't turn back the vessels loaded with Missiles. If politicians want such capabilities then they must provide the hardware at the required response levels.
    With all due respect to you, you need to write a book (or 2) about your service.
    If former L/S Jim Brady can manage 2 books about his service in the NS based on him getting the wrong size uniform and getting ripped off by a brasser in the city I know there would be a much larger audience interested in hearing about life as an officer in the NS of the 60s, 70s and 80s. You have given us fascinating snippets and insights here from time to time about your experiences. People deserve to have to pay to read about this.
    Given that you probably instructed the current DFCoS on everything he knows, I'm sure he would be fully supportive too.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  15. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest, spider, EUFighter, Flamingo, ias, Shaqra, sofa liked this post
  16. #2761
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like
    Go
    for it ! Now is an ideal time with the Covid-19 restrictions !

  17. #2762
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    With all due respect to you, you need to write a book (or 2) about your service.
    If former L/S Jim Brady can manage 2 books about his service in the NS based on him getting the wrong size uniform and getting ripped off by a brasser in the city I know there would be a much larger audience interested in hearing about life as an officer in the NS of the 60s, 70s and 80s. You have given us fascinating snippets and insights here from time to time about your experiences. People deserve to have to pay to read about this.
    Given that you probably instructed the current DFCoS on everything he knows, I'm sure he would be fully supportive too.
    I'll second that. Fascinating period of history and you were there living it. The evolution of the Irish NS from the 60s to the 80s would be a great read.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  18. Likes na grohmiti, DeV, Flamingo, ias liked this post
  19. #2763
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    Hi spider

    Planning in the late 1980s was essentially defensive, it was recognised that the fantasians ( who were better armed and equipped) had the ability to undertake offensive operations into the republic and it was considered highly likely that they would. Hence planning was initially defensive and influenced by Cold War Austrian doctrine which would have seen the creation of a number of defensive zones along the border and light forces would make best use of terrain between the secure zones to harass the fantasians. So to answer the question there were no plans to help anybody north of the border as the df assumed that it would be essentially on the defensive from the fantasians for a number of months

    However in this scenario were staff planning and contained a high degree of largely theoretical planning assumptions for example hodson points out that planners put a surprising amount of effort into the discussion as to whether or not mbt should be placed in brigades or concentrated a regimental level which would make more sense if we actually had any
    We're diverting the thread and this probably deserves one of its own, but I think you've answered my question, thank you.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  20. #2764
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=EUFighter;475033]
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post

    The mods need to the P60's to give them some form of AA , A/fast boat. ASW would be substantial, but some major reworking of vessels has been done before the RN with their Type15/16 frigates and the USN with the FRAM destroyers. Basically it would involve going from a basic OPV to something more like a corvette. Systems that would be needed in order of priority could be as follows:

    (1) ESM system: relatively low cost passive detection system, would warm of radar tracking etc.
    (2) X-band 3d radar: as weight would be always an issue a compact radar like the Saab Giraffe 1x, gives a range of 75km and can be used for weapon cueing.
    (3) Decoy system such as the Terma SKWS or Rheinmetall MASS
    (4) Upgrade of FCS, replacement of the EO system with the Sea Eagle FCRO (radar and electro optical fire control system) from Chess Dynamics.
    (5) CMS: A Combat Management System would be required to fusion all the information into a tactical picture.
    (6) Replacement of the Rhinos with a modern RWS. The rate of fire of the Rhinos is good but they lack a modern control system for combating fast small craft. Something like the MLG27 or something similar.
    (7) Hull Mounted Sonar: to give a basic underwater picture, would be a major modification but the minimum needed to get any form of ASW capability.
    (8) 2-4 fixed tubes for Lightweight ASW torpedo. Currently in the West only ASW torpedoes are being manufactured, no-one makes depth charges even if some countries have them in stock still and the Swedish ASW 600 ASW rocket launcher is also no longer in production.
    (9) CIWS: to give the vessel an active defence system, either a Phalanx or SeaRAM system as they can be dismounted quickly thus the requirement could be for 2 systems rather than 4 (need not be new builds). The OTO Melara Strales system requires a lot more integration into the system sensor and CMS system.
    (10) AA missile system, best candidate would be the MBDA Simbad-RC system, although Saab might be able to offer something based on the RBS70NG

    Cost would be somewhere around €200-240m (ex-VAT) to cover all four vessels. Crewing would increase so this would need to be accommodated also.
    We looked at naval weaponry on page 9 of NAVAL WEAPONRY MOL. Due to a naval need a large number of OPV's , of varying sizes are in production by many key Navies, including those with overseas territories. Some are being equipped to the high end towards war fighting and are fitted at commissioning with combat systems . Of the larger OPV's, the Irish Naval ships are the only ones without a Combat management System. I personally am NOT sure of what's under the bonnet or since fitted. We have gone back in mil. capability. It needs fixing particularly on the 90metre vessels with 30 years of service in the pipeline. Your list is relevant as a picking list. The continual re-profiling of our Naval capability, dismissal of flight decks, deletion of equipments, has also led to a professional vacuum , requiring a major training commitment , in the event of mil. upgrades.

  21. Likes Tempest liked this post
  22. #2765
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just for info, here is some details on what the Philippians Navy wants from its next to LPD's (SSV). Keen eyed will notice the expensive stuff is "fitted for but not with".

    http://maxdefense.blogspot.com/2019/...ents-of-2.html

  23. #2766
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Interesting article on Fast Transport / Long Range Patrol Vessel. seeing as the Air Corps are getting C 130Js / A400M the Navy shouldnt be left out
    http://cimsec.org/proposing-modern-h...l-vessel/28533

  24. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  25. #2767
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    Interesting article on Fast Transport / Long Range Patrol Vessel. seeing as the Air Corps are getting C 130Js / A400M the Navy shouldnt be left out
    http://cimsec.org/proposing-modern-h...l-vessel/28533
    Tonnage, dimensions, range, are about right for us. I would go for the deeper draft. The outfit for the LRPV would meet all ASW,and surface combat modes including AA defence. The crew levels are too high for us but are necessary for operating the intended outfit of armament, medical provisions, simulation, and away crew for LCVP's. I'd imagine we would go for 23/24 kts and sustainable speed with OPV's in company at 18 kts. Afaik the MRV's combat outfit has not been mentioned only HADR even though medical facilities and personnel are not available in uniform. Such a ship is a target requiring a high response capability. The one gun and CRAA is NOT adequate.

  26. #2768
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    Interesting article on Fast Transport / Long Range Patrol Vessel. seeing as the Air Corps are getting C 130Js / A400M the Navy shouldnt be left out
    http://cimsec.org/proposing-modern-h...l-vessel/28533
    The Naval Service is not been left out, in fact it is the only one which has an active project. The MRV project remains active and will likely see the light of day before any airlift capability is added to the AC.
    Most likely as it seems VARD is our semi-in-house design office the vessel will look something like the VARD7-313 design discussed last year. It being very much based upon key parameters of the HMNZS Canterbury, with one big exception that it lacks the independent ability to land equipment should a harbour facility be unavailable (HADR mission).

  27. Thanks DeV, Graylion thanked for this post
  28. #2769
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    Interesting article on Fast Transport / Long Range Patrol Vessel. seeing as the Air Corps are getting C 130Js / A400M the Navy shouldnt be left out
    http://cimsec.org/proposing-modern-h...l-vessel/28533
    Why did the USN have such ships in the first place? Well they had plenty of destroyer escorts and not a lot for them to do in the Pacific. While we all focus on the big actions like Tarawa, Makin, Iwo Jima there were many much smaller islands that had to be attached and did not need a full on assault. But this was a time of learning in amphibious warfare and many of the ships types from that time are no longer to be found in service.

    Some comments brought up the Absolon class, it is close to what the APD's had with the exception it primary assault means would be via helicopter as it does not carry landing craft like a LCVP or LCM. But it weapons fit make it much better suited to the proposed mission than that in the article (SPY radar, SM missiles etc). It is likely that we could get 2x MRV's and 2x Absolon class vessels for the price of one of the proposed LRPV's.

  29. Likes Graylion liked this post
  30. #2770
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Why did the USN have such ships in the first place? Well they had plenty of destroyer escorts and not a lot for them to do in the Pacific. While we all focus on the big actions like Tarawa, Makin, Iwo Jima there were many much smaller islands that had to be attached and did not need a full on assault. But this was a time of learning in amphibious warfare and many of the ships types from that time are no longer to be found in service.

    Some comments brought up the Absolon class, it is close to what the APD's had with the exception it primary assault means would be via helicopter as it does not carry landing craft like a LCVP or LCM. But it weapons fit make it much better suited to the proposed mission than that in the article (SPY radar, SM missiles etc). It is likely that we could get 2x MRV's and 2x Absolon class vessels for the price of one of the proposed LRPV's.
    When confronted with the task of putting boots on the ground, particularly in The Far East campaign in WW11, you must get amphibious , and vessels were adapted to do that job, from designed LC's with beach landings, and Merchant ships adapted to operate LCVP's of the day. The evolving Naval needs based on threats saw need for ships that could do specific tasks well, or do a few adequately as in escort and convoy duty. In the early 1950's the Brits saw a need for the first OPV type vessels, initially for FP and surveillance. The Irish followed through eventually building eleven ships all designated OPV. These vessels were, and proved capable of world wide deployment without major support demands. Soon some were adapted for interdictive roles in Falklands and Caribbean and ours did splendidly in the Mediterranean.
    Right now many versions of the OPV with augmentable roles are in the pipeline with more than 150 vessels in 36 countries and many more to come.
    Whatever version of MRV we build it MUST be able to land it's movable payload by own craft, own cranes, and quay access doors. It must be able to support a complete mission at home and abroad as our main command platform.

  31. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  32. #2771
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    A design such as the VARD is fine for the mission of equipment transport where RoRo facilities are available at port of departure and arrival. And as we are not in the business of doing opposed amphibious landings this should be sufficient for the primary military mission. However if the vessel is to provide meaningful HADR then the design is lacking in some aspects and the equipment needed for such a mission (plan for the worst case, hope for the best).

    Imagine somehow we manage to find enough medical staff to run the proposed on-board hospital, if the harbour facilities are blocked how do you get patients to the ship? I have not seen any amphibious ambulances but if they do exist that would be great, but in the mean time the usual transfer method will be helicopter. The best type of helicopter would be a navalised SAR as the SAR missions gives it the onboard equipment needed. As the helicopters would likely travel and operate from the vessel they would need folding rotors, harpoon etc. Do we have this? No Will we ever get this if the SAR contract is a commercial one? No.

    The next is how do you move the HADR equipment that the engineers have brought with them? One of the basic pieces of equipment would be a JCB, yet that exceeds the limit of the small landing craft proposed. But the mission could require heavier kit, a SX-45 wrecker, a mobile crane like the Liebherr LTM1050, or any other construction equipment the engineers might like to have. But it is worth nothing if it cannot be landed, and the minimum would be an LCM, which is what is found on the Canterbury (could be the similar LCM-E).

    Procuring a MRV on it's own is like buying a Swiss Army knife with no attachments, the potential is there but it is all the other bits that makes it work. It should be a project that encompasses not only the Naval Service but also the Air Corps, the Army (Logistics and Engineering Corps), the Coast Guard and DFA&T.

  33. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Flamingo liked this post
  34. #2772
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,139
    Post Thanks / Like
    What small landing craft are proposed?
    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. #2773
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    What small landing craft are proposed?
    On the VARD design they have 2x 15m LCVP, so something that could take some Toyota Land Cruisers but nothing bigger.

  36. #2774
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you want to do HADR you need to be able to put JCB's ashore without the use of port facilities, that means an LCU. That also means you can bring in lorries with PSP and matting, and water purification plants, power generation systems...

    HADR needs helicopters, LCU, Engineers, loggies, and lots of satellite phones. If you're not bringing that stuff, you're getting in the way,and it would be better if you just donated to charity.

  37. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  38. #2775
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,139
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    On the VARD design they have 2x 15m LCVP, so something that could take some Toyota Land Cruisers but nothing bigger.
    Where are the specs that suggest this? In any event, if your "LCVP" is mounted on a crane high up, it's not designed to carry any vehicles.
    A greater priority, in my view is a crane with a reach good enough to self discharge any deck cargo.
    Let's not call it HADR, that something people who mind servers do in the IT world.
    This is not a vessel designed for that role, it is merely a platform that would be big enough to be used as such if necessary, and as I keep banging on and on, 90% of it's service will be EEZ patrol, and the annual overseas supply/vehicle repatriation/delivery.
    Te logistics a ship would provide in this instance is not necessarily its heavy equipment. It is the crew available to do the heavy lifting in the aftermath of such an event, while the victims are more concerned with getting medical care for the injures, locating their missing family and finding shelter.
    In the past, the RN (no stranger to using all types of landing craft) used their Wildcat Helicopters and RhIBs to bring aid to the Bahamas, liasing with the USCG and Local Emergency response services in the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian. All this was done from RFA Mounts Bay. (an LSD capable of carrying one LCU in its well deck, and fitted with 2 30 tonne cranes, and can carry Mexeflotes attached to the sides.
    If whatever event you are going to put the port out of action to the extent that you can't drive vehicles onto the quay, then there is a good chance anywhere you land them via landing craft would just mean they all get stuck on a beach somewhere while people on foot go ahead with chainsaws to clear the roads of debris.
    L.E Eithne demonstrated this potential during the South American trip, when a portion of the skills you would normally find aboard ship, went ashore, in local transport, to repair a local school/orphanage that had been damaged during the rainy season. The materials were locally sourced, the skills available and the hands to do the work what was needed most.
    So remembering we are looking at a Patrol vessel that can do other things here. Not a Disaster relief ship that can do offshore patrols.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  39. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, Flamingo, DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

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