Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Too slow to be a CPV
Too low bollard tow to be a useful ETV
Draft too deep to be a CPV
It could possibly do the job of MCM mothership due to deck space
A traditional MCMV is too slow to be a PV and other too small to be all weather, it won’t have the bollard tow to be a useful ETV
An ETV is too slow to be a PV
A PV generally won’t have the bollard tow to be an ETV
Except no one.. wants a ETV. In fact, Government policy is not to have one.
A multi-purpose offshore patrol vessel, albeit with very high capital
costs, can make savings across government by increased efficiency ..
.. and the ability to flex an otherwise costly emergency towing
capability at short notice ..
Experience elsewhere in Europe suggests that the likeliest vessel
requiring assistance is small enough to require a relatively modest
tug with a 100–150t bollard pull.. - From conclusions (PDF Pages 63/64)
You'll note that the example vessels shown meet the quoted technical requirements and the very high capital costs refered to would be reduced substantially to marginal costs because we need two new Naval Vessels, of some description, anyway. Delve deeper into the IRCG report and, in the relatively inert language beloved of consultants everywhere, the Naval Service recieve; a furtive glance, heavy breathing, and following an awkward approach, the tang of unrequited disappointment.
The moving of liability for the operation away from the
State, by outsourcing some or all of the operation of the ETV carries a
premium in terms of contractual fees. These may not be offset by
preventing an increase in the size of the directly employed workforce, and
may be unnecessary if greater efficiency can be leveraged from other state
agencies such as the Irish Naval Service or Irish Lights. - PDF Page 7
There may be the potential to reduce research, development and design costs
by relying upon technical support from other nations already operating such ships.
One likely partner, the Irish Naval Service, already possesses sufficiently trained and qualified
personnel to crew and operate such a vessel which could offset some running costs. - PDF Page 34
A telephone discussion was had with.. ..at the Department of Defence, who
intimated that in the event that the State wished to pursue the procurement
of an offshore multi-purpose vessel capable of emergency towing, the Flag Officer
would be open for holding discussions with the IRCG with regard to the possibility
of a joint service provision and funding. - PDF Page 47
The flagged nations are on the bottom of every project it just means we are in the EDA.
That’s as maybe but Government policy is now to regain some additional MCM capabilities
.
There is always the possibility that various levels, from acute to sustained tasks, in underwater clearance may be required. Minimally we would need two capable vessels operating modern clearance methods with sufficient range and durability to assist as required within EU waters. Personnel involved would become skilled in evolutions unique to MCM and would require ring-fencing to maintain on-board skill levels.
ETV is a firebrigade exercise with reasonable probability of being required in these days of Cruise liners with thousands of souls on board. Weather patterns are of a more aggressive nature. In the 50's and 60's it was not unusual to have famous tugs , such as Turmoil , stationed at Cobh, for the winter period. ETV operations are as relevant as OIL RIG Standby Vessels - ERV- ERRV's who are continuously on station in one per rig.
Naval standing forces are a resource for providing manpower for a suitable vessel with a useful bollard pull .The question is do we acquire an Ocean towing vessel OR add the capability to the MRV. Towing requires reasonable grip in the water ( Draft ) which would be more available to an MRV rather than the OPV's. The Difficulty will be that there may be only one MRV and location will be subject to chance and prior tasking.
"..similar vessels with counter-mine and counter-IED capabilities."
Would suggest that, perhaps in a purely legalistic sense, a Vard-7-80 design with a containerised MCM/UIED capacity aboard would meet the strict prescription.
Would free up fleet-numbers for two ETVs, but would this approach be sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?
(Edited here for relevance and clarity)
Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 5 May 2019, 23:21.
Reason: Clarity
MCM adaptibility of steel vessels restricts use exclusively to off ship remote disposal of specific mines and maybe excludes moored mines and magnetic mines. In any event large deck areas are required for handling of deployable equipments and umbilical connections , not sure if any of the ships mentioned could do sufficient tasks to be classed as MCM compatible.
It is not just the Dutch and Belgians that are replacing GFRP minehunters with steel hulled motherships. The Australian Navy has gone one step further with SEA1180 "Arafura" class which is based upon the Lürssen's OPV80 design. These vessels will replace the Armidale-class patrol boats, the Huon-class minehunters, the Leeuwin-class survey vessels, and the Paluma-class survey motor launches. So it well respected navies around the world can do it why would we be different, especially as its more than 30 years since we had a minesweeper in service and at the time they were hardly "state-of-the-art"??
So there is a lot of sense as U.S suggested in utilising the P60 design for some MCM missions especially as they already have 3 TEU spaces, a decent crane and if the 3rd RIB was deleted (do we need three?) there is even more space available. True the DP should be improved but this could be done on two new modified vessels. At least then there would be commonality over almost all the ships in service.
Closer to 40, all three were broken up in 1987, and had been minding the wall of the basin for many years beforehand, having been decommissioned in 1984.
The Ton class whas the best of WW2 design minesweeping technology jammed into 46metres. The main purpose of her design was to try and not detonate the mines they were looking for, hook them on a wire towed between a pair of sweepers, and sink them with gunfire. Hardly hi-tech.
The third rib space is for a third rib. You can't hang a TEU there. You already have three TEU spots (plus electrical supply) and a heavy duty crane. Make the best of what you have.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
A CPV with MCM/CIED capability may need a NSDS RHIB so the space could come in handy, the thing is that there could well be a need for more than 3 TEUs for MCM/CIED.
It also needs a work area which is limited with the TEUs.
[QUOTE=na grohmiti;467566]Closer to 40, all three were broken up in 1987, and had been minding the wall of the basin for many years beforehand, having been decommissioned in 1984.
The Ton class whas the best of WW2 design minesweeping technology jammed into 46metres. The main purpose of her design was to try and not detonate the mines they were looking for, hook them on a wire towed between a pair of sweepers, and sink them with gunfire. Hardly hi-tech.
The third rib space is for a third rib. You can't hang a TEU there. You already have three TEU spots (plus electrical supply) and a heavy duty crane. Make the best of what you have.[ Quote
If you adapt current vessels using the available after deck space, geared towards housing 20ft TEU, then you may not have enough space for at least two large reels for deployment wire and transmission links, and the deployable units . Some of the modern remote controllable units are 36ft long and 10.5 ft wide . No doubt something could be fitted but it would require some redesign on the after end, including relocating deck fittings and maintaining mooring and towing arrangements.
Absolutely, in fairness having said that, REMUS 100 (which the NSDS has and can be used for mine detection) can be launched from a RHIB.
But if we want something that can go deeper and/or actually do more than detect (eg Saab Double Eagle . https://youtu.be/cvjnur9ZCG0 ... then we need a work area and 3-5 TEUs and possibly a larger crane and/or a LARS (which would be advantageous for NSDS anyways)
The LARS for 2 divers (not sure if it would take AUV) is big... needs a TEU to ship it
See posts 275 and 430 for the NSDS current equipment requirements
There are close links between the Diving Fraternity and modern mine and underwater EOD clearance. It is paramount that such a unit has an in-service facility for both training and operational tasks.Any future MCM capable unit must be worked up in a real envoirment preferably with other similar naval Units. The Belgian/German MCM have both a simulator training unit and school for training their MCM assets. In addition to stated equipment requirements it is crucial that cyber security vis a vis Ecdis, AIS , and all GMDSS are proofed against hacking or spoofing. Viking Sky off Norway may have had an erroneous navigation data incident leading to her distress incident. It goes without saying all ships including MCM must have exact knowledge of position.
If we are to go down the USV route your talking a fair amount of space being required (really min 2 TEU before you do anything about the mine that it has detected)
The big advantage of something like Saab Double Eagle SAROV is that it can be used for all aspects of MCM and isn’t disposable when it comes to the final phase
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment