EPV for naval service

[danno]

Unsure, simply because there were no air corps spitfires, The spitfire was only introduced post war.

During the war there was a limited number of hurricanes but they only became operational in mid 1944, when the war had moved on

I stand corrected but the protocol did exist.

[sofa]

We are never going to use artillery, any of the guns on any of the ships or, indeed as is likely, anything at all in the defence forces heavier than a GPMG....

Do we want to go back to borrowing artillery, when the need arises?

[expat01]

My original point was in response to the assertion that as we never used ASW capability when we had it, there is little point re acquiring it. My post was meant to show that position as being wrong. The navy absolutely needs to acquire a warfighting capability. Ireland is no longer an impoverished nation with the population of a large city. That said We should also consider what we can never realistically achieve and how ditching our silly notion of unarmed neutrality might fill that gap. We don't even have to join NATO to have defence partnerships.

[DeV]

My original point was in response to the assertion that as we never used ASW capability when we had it, there is little point re acquiring it. My post was meant to show that position as being wrong.

I don't think anyone will argue against an affordable effective ASW system. Even if it was just the detection ability.

The navy absolutely needs to acquire a warfighting capability.

Why? A majority of the Irish population agree that Ireland shouldn't be fighting wars.

Ireland is no longer an impoverished nation with the population of a large city.

Agree to differ

That said We should also consider what we can never realistically achieve and how ditching our silly notion of unarmed neutrality might fill that gap. We don't even have to join NATO to have defence partnerships.

Under armed not unarmed

[morpheus]

neutrality is a stupid notion for this nation to have. we need a close alliance with the likes of france and britain or extending that to nato in general. we couldnt possibly hope to afford the costs of individual sovereign neutrality and the power to enforce it or at least threaten a bloody nose and attrition to anyone who threatens it. the world is a LOT smaller than it was 70 years ago.

[ancientmariner]

We didn't have Spitfires or Sea fires in WW2

We had Hurricanes , regarded as a front line fighter, both over the UK and Occupied Europe.

[Sparky42]

We had Hurricanes , regarded as a front line fighter, both over the UK and Occupied Europe.

By the time we had Hurricanes it was far past a frontline fighter in Europe, or anywhere else, and would have been outclassed by any of the current fighters of the time.

[ancientmariner]

DEV what is your function in the Naval threads. I am confused as I feel you are being capricious and anti Navy.

[DeV]

DEV what is your function in the Naval threads. I am confused as I feel you are being capricious and anti Navy.

Far from anti-navy

Interested (realistic) observer

It is essential that the vessels are replaced with superior capabilities than the current vessels.

With the CPVs that to me means mainly superior accommodation, better seakeeping capabilities and the ability to carry 3 TEUs (for the new role). With the remaining keys specs (eg speed, endurance, RHIBs, etc) being at least equal to the Peacocks.

For the MPV, that means to me the ability to carry at least the equipment of a APC based Coy Gp/EUBG ISTAR TF (Irish elements) (my personal view is that anything less would be a waste of money), better endurance and range plus better seakeeping than the P61 class. It should also have a helipad for a medium lift helo. The remaining key specs being at least equal to Eithne as a minimum.

Apart from the above, any other increase in capability is desirable (but not essential) and should only be sought if there is a likelyhood that there is a possibility that it will be used (at home/overseas) and the DF can get the financial resources to purchase (and maintain) it. Once the essential capabilities aren't scarificed for the desirable it is also ok.

As I said, those are the essential elements (some of them are outlined by Government (in consultation with the DF, NS and other stakeholders) plus a few by myself). I would also use the EPV RFT as a guide (some would disagree but at the moment that and the WP are the only official guidance available). It was written when the NS (and DF (obviously with DoD and Government support) as it got to that stage) knew what they really wanted a blue/green ship (but they kept they options open and they knew that primarily it was a PV (not a landing ship) as that is what they spend 90% of their patrol days doing (fishery protection). It was also a period when the budget to purchase it was much less or an issue than it is now.

As we've seen in both threads there is nothing currently available as an off the shelf design to match the specs (no small CPV type vessel that can carry 3 TEUs or alternatively a MCMV that is fast enough to be a PV) (no vessel that isn't huge by NS standards, that the NS could man and carry the kit required). That means either a design from scratch (the NS has experienced this with Eithne) or a modification of an existing design (NS has experience of this with P20-P23, P50-51 and P60-62).

I want the NS to get what the need to meet their essential requirement first, anything after that is a bonus. Realistically the budget isn't limitless. Over spec the MRV and the NS will be told to cut elsewhere (more than likely a 6/7 vessel fleet (max 1 CPV).

[Galloglass]

Sounds what possibly might happen.....As you said above...... "With the CPVs that to me means mainly superior accommodation, better seakeeping capabilities and the ability to carry 3 TEUs (for the new role). With the remaining keys specs (eg speed, endurance, RHIBs, etc) being at least equal to the Peacocks."......Sounds pretty much like a "modified" OPV to me. That would keep the majority of voters on the other poll happy (myself included) with regard to the "CPV"anyway.

If you were "modifying" something (as an MRV) what type would you like to modify?

[DeV]

Modify the P60 class to make a CPV?:
Take 20 metres off the bow
Take 1 metre off the draft
Increase the speed by 5 kts

Big changes!!

Best designs to modify as MRV:
Damien XO131T (not sure of all the details so not sure)
Damen LPD8000 (see above)
Absalon

All would require structural changes

[restless]

Gentlemen, take a look out the window! what use is a cpv in this weather, (10th storm in as many weeks) and its only going to get worse long term according to the met people. Do a deal with appledore for two more poets, loose the peacocks and replace them with the 50 class.

[ancientmariner]

Dev don't modify by chopping bits off the bow, as what you have left also has to have a sharp end. A demonstration for a matchbox shaped floating structure showed that if you want a larger structure with the same characteristics you wind up with 17 extra boxes making a total of 18 eg 1 box under the original, plus two vertically stacked boxes either side. You then have a structure three boxes wide so you then put a double tier of three boxes ahead and also a similar group astern. You can stretch in smaller portions but you are left with elements of difficulty like positioning of Main Engines, Fuel Tanks, Freshwater tanks, and water ballast if carried.
Buy a Hull design and modify as required where possible.

[DeV]

Dev don't modify by chopping bits off the bow, as what you have left also has to have a sharp end. A demonstration for a matchbox shaped floating structure showed that if you want a larger structure with the same characteristics you wind up with 17 extra boxes making a total of 18 eg 1 box under the original, plus two vertically stacked boxes either side. You then have a structure three boxes wide so you then put a double tier of three boxes ahead and also a similar group ahead. You can stretch in smaller portions but you are left with elements of difficulty like positioning of Main Engines, Fuel Tanks, Freshwater tanks, and water ballast if carried.
Buy a Hull design and modify as required where possible.

It wasn't meant literally.

What I meant was the to turn the PV60 design into a CPV would involve reducing the length of the hull by about 20 metres (22%) and reduce the draft by approx 1 metre (26%).

[DeV]

Gentlemen, take a look out the window! what use is a cpv in this weather, (10th storm in as many weeks) and its only going to get worse long term according to the met people. Do a deal with appledore for two more poets, loose the peacocks and replace them with the 50 class.

Well Government decided otherwise

I don't necessarily agree with the decision BTW