Thanks Thanks:  408
Likes Likes:  811
Dislikes Dislikes:  13

View Poll Results: (Realistically) What best to replace the Peacock CPVs with?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like for like (a similarly capable CPV)

    22 31.88%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 56.52%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    8 11.59%
Page 42 of 43 FirstFirst ... 3240414243 LastLast
Results 1,026 to 1,050 of 1052

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #1026
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by A/TEL View Post
    There is a PO/Commop (Retd) Stewart Hamilton doing research for a book on the NS at present.

    He would be delighted to hear from you @ancientmariner

    https://www.facebook.com/stewart.hamilton.90281
    He rang me some time back and I have offered to help him in any way possible. When I retired in 1992 I gave all my papers , on request to Military archives, in Dublin. However I kept all Sailing In /Out states from my time as NO.I on the Maev so I can put my hand on every Man and officer I've sailed with by name and rank. What crews we had up to 70 personnel in bunks and hammocks. However History is just that so hopefully we will push forward with a more fulsome Navy and ships with a deterrent edge.

  2. Likes na grohmiti, spider, EUFighter, hptmurphy liked this post
  3. #1027
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    Very positive sounds coming from FOCNS in his Christmas message, it gave one hope for the future as the NS reaches its 75th Birthday (seems like the 50th was just yesterday).
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  4. Likes DeV, spider liked this post
  5. #1028
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    24,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by DeV; 1st January 2021 at 17:08.

  6. #1029
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not sure about this one. Limpet mines are usually attached by diver/swimmers to the undersides of the floating target. Propellers, shafts, rudders are common targets but all underwater. The one on show looks like it came out of the shop and put on high and dry above the waterline. They are attached by a strong magnet and will explode on attempted removal.

  7. Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #1030
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    24,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Not sure about this one. Limpet mines are usually attached by diver/swimmers to the undersides of the floating target. Propellers, shafts, rudders are common targets but all underwater. The one on show looks like it came out of the shop and put on high and dry above the waterline. They are attached by a strong magnet and will explode on attempted removal.
    Same

    Is someone very obviously trying to provoke conflict?
    A lot of B52 and tanker activity last few days

  9. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  10. #1031
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,568
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Yanks in the Gulf are on standby for an attack by Iran and its proxies on the first anniversary of the US attack on the head of the Republican Guard.

    Expect an interesting few days

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/30/p...ack/index.html
    Last edited by Flamingo; 1st January 2021 at 20:31.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  11. #1032
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,395
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Not sure about this one. Limpet mines are usually attached by diver/swimmers to the undersides of the floating target. Propellers, shafts, rudders are common targets but all underwater. The one on show looks like it came out of the shop and put on high and dry above the waterline. They are attached by a strong magnet and will explode on attempted removal.
    Picture of Aleged Vessel in an unladen state showing the red portion in under the waterline.

    https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais...photoid=571828

    Possibly discovered after discharge, and maybe designed to cause a loss of cargo/ Ecological Incident / Blackmail (instead of hijacking)?
    It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
    It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
    It was a new age...It was the end of history.
    It was the year everything changed.

  12. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  13. #1033
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    Picture of Aleged Vessel in an unladen state showing the red portion in under the waterline.

    https://photos.marinetraffic.com/ais...photoid=571828

    Possibly discovered after discharge, and maybe designed to cause a loss of cargo/ Ecological Incident / Blackmail (instead of hijacking)?
    The AIS photo is of a different time. Take your point that the limpet mine, as shown, is under the loaded waterline. With the fender close by we can assume it is a picture of the ship with the mined side next to the Jetty. Swimmers would be inclined to work outboard so I would assume she was mined when the displayed side was outboard at an earlier port.

  14. #1034
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    24,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The AIS photo is of a different time. Take your point that the limpet mine, as shown, is under the loaded waterline. With the fender close by we can assume it is a picture of the ship with the mined side next to the Jetty. Swimmers would be inclined to work outboard so I would assume she was mined when the displayed side was outboard at an earlier port.
    Not sure about the timeline of discovery but that picture, afaik, is taken where there are 2 ships side by side at sea and the load is being transferred from one to the other

  15. #1035
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Not sure about the timeline of discovery but that picture, afaik, is taken where there are 2 ships side by side at sea and the load is being transferred from one to the other
    Just miles from FAW port, why would that be, as transferring oil at sea is difficult. The mine looks a training unit, shiny with white handling ropes, and non military colouration. Is it possible the ship is banned from FAW.

  16. #1036
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    24,024
    Post Thanks / Like

  17. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  18. #1037
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    KAZ anchorage seems to be upriver near Basra Iraq. It is an area of US interest and Control. The vessel was there some time and maybe was used as a training mission.

  19. #1038
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    Being closed in its current form due to operation now of the Equipment Development Plan which will be the way to take this (and similar projects) forward, it moves to the EDP programme level process using PM methodology. The Equipment Development Plan has an explicit commitment to fleet replacement.
    Kick that can! Kick it good!
    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/b1...february-2021/
    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. #1039
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40229948.html

    Last December, the Irish Examiner exclusively revealed that Minister for Defence, Simon Coveney, and military chiefs were planning to acquire two smaller vessels for fishery patrols in the Irish Sea; a move necessitated by Brexit.

    Two ships belonging to a foreign navy have been identified as being suitable for the task.

    They are much smaller than some of the newer Naval Service ships, which are 90m long, and can thus be crewed with fewer personnel.

    There isn't the requirement for bigger ships to patrol the Irish Sea as the weather there is not as turbulent as the Atlantic.

    The 90m ships need a crew of 45, whereas these vessels can be crewed by anything between 20 and 25 personnel.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  21. #1040
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    215
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://navalpost.com/malta-armed-fo...unch-vittoria/

    LÉ Aoifes replacement has left the slipway. It seems like a nice upgrade for the Maltese navy. In the article it states it is 75% funded by the EU. I believe in the past the EU has part funded ships for us aswell. Go easy on me, but would it be possible to receive similar funding for future vessels?

  22. #1041
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pilatus View Post
    https://navalpost.com/malta-armed-fo...unch-vittoria/

    LÉ Aoifes replacement has left the slipway. It seems like a nice upgrade for the Maltese navy. In the article it states it is 75% funded by the EU. I believe in the past the EU has part funded ships for us aswell. Go easy on me, but would it be possible to receive similar funding for future vessels?
    I doubt it tbh, the EU funded the Maltese boat and ours before because they and us couldn't reasonable afford them. Fairly sure now they would point out our gdp and our defence budget and suggest we could afford it ourselves.

  23. #1042
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    24,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pilatus View Post
    https://navalpost.com/malta-armed-fo...unch-vittoria/

    LÉ Aoifes replacement has left the slipway. It seems like a nice upgrade for the Maltese navy. In the article it states it is 75% funded by the EU. I believe in the past the EU has part funded ships for us aswell. Go easy on me, but would it be possible to receive similar funding for future vessels?
    The EU funded Deirdre, Aoife, Aisling, Emer, Roisin and Niamh (not sure about Eithne, the Peacocks or P60s) to the tune of 50% (ex armament).

    We are now a net contributor and we the recent CFP enforcement issue that ship may have sailed

  24. #1043
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The EU funded Deirdre, Aoife, Aisling, Emer, Roisin and Niamh (not sure about Eithne, the Peacocks or P60s) to the tune of 50% (ex armament).

    We are now a net contributor and we the recent CFP enforcement issue that ship may have sailed
    The 60's were paid by us I think.

  25. #1044
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    The 60's were paid by us I think.
    Yes, AFAIK, P60 onwards were ours. I was directly involved in the building of P20's next sister and was constantly reminded by DOD reps that the EU would countenance NO procurement of armaments so we wound up with token local operated WW11 Bofors, a couple of 20mms. They even mentioned that funding would be withdrawn if we kept highlighting the need for military equipment. Luckily the Peacocks came in, just in time, to make 76mm acceptable for P31 onwards, even if from the Hector Gray stable.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 1st March 2021 at 09:54.

  26. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV, sofa, Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes Jetjock liked this post
  27. #1045
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Yes, AFAIK, P60 onwards were ours. I was directly involved in the building of P20's next sister and was constantly reminded by DOD reps that the EU would countenance NO procurement of armaments so we wound up with token local operated WW11 Bofors, a couple of 20mms. They even mentioned that funding would be withdrawn if we kept highlighting the need for military equipment. Luckily the Peacocks came in, just in time, to make 76mm acceptable for P31 onwards, even if from the Hector Gray stable.
    Do you believe that there was a genuine threat to funding if the vessels were appropriately armed or was it a convenient excuse to avoid spending the money required to do so?

  28. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  29. #1046
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    I remember that the main armament on P20 (L60) had a date of manufacture of 1948.
    Our DoD had a history of messing up military equipment purchases. Wasn't there a case in the 70s of some armoured vehicles being detained at a port somewhere because local law enforcement couldn't be sure whether the vehicles were destined for the Defence forces or the PIRA?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  30. Likes DeV liked this post
  31. #1047
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    960
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I remember that the main armament on P20 (L60) had a date of manufacture of 1948.
    Our DoD had a history of messing up military equipment purchases. Wasn't there a case in the 70s of some armoured vehicles being detained at a port somewhere because local law enforcement couldn't be sure whether the vehicles were destined for the Defence forces or the PIRA?
    The UNIMOGS

  32. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV thanked for this post
  33. #1048
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Do you believe that there was a genuine threat to funding if the vessels were appropriately armed or was it a convenient excuse to avoid spending the money required to do so?
    It was a running mantra from the CS on the Defence construction board, obviously they were building a ship for FP only.

  34. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  35. #1049
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    It was a running mantra from the CS on the Defence construction board, obviously they were building a ship for FP only.
    Shortly after her entry into service, L.E. Deirdre bore the Pennant number FP-20. Not sure when the F was painted over, but it was like it was intended as a constant reminder: don't get any notions.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  36. #1050
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Shortly after her entry into service, L.E. Deirdre bore the Pennant number FP-20. Not sure when the F was painted over, but it was like it was intended as a constant reminder: don't get any notions.
    She also had a blue and yellow quartered pennant welded on both sides of her funnel and also flew the pennant on her yard arm.

  37. Likes na grohmiti, 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
  •