Originally posted by Flamingo
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OPV Replacement
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by Rhodes View PostGiven that the Naval Service is suffering a net loss of about 50 personnel per year and two ships had to be tied up to crew the last ridiculous acquisition with a third ship going to go that way too shortly, its well over the top of the curve .
There was never an intention to buy 4 OPVs. It was always 2 OPV with option for 3rd, and 1 EPV with an option for 2nd. The structure was never put in place for a 4th OPV, there isn't even space for one to tie up in Haulbowline. At least 1 P60 has to tie up in Cobh most of the time, with 3 ships out of service at all times due to manning issues or extended refit, there just isn't room for the remaining ships not on patrol to park up in the basin or on the Oil wharf.
And to think the Air Corps were refused a 2nd PC12NG because they had nowhere to park it..For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThere is no bell curve, but the picture is quite different.
[ATTACH]8812[/ATTACH]
(I have removed those in refit or "operational reserve")
We had a period of expansion just after we joined the EEC and then the fleet size remained fairly constant for the most of 40 years, now we have a steep decline. Once the two P50 class complete their refits we will be back to a fleet of 6.
The remaining 3 vessels: LÉ Eithne, LÉ Orla & LÉ Ciara all reached 35yrs in 2019 and should be allowed to retire. It is not as it the two Peacocks have received anywhere near the refits that their sister boats have in Philippine service!
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostI should be disagreeing with you. I'm not. It appears the only reason we got such good terms on P64 was to keep Babcock Appledore alive long enough to complete HMSPWLS. Now that's done, they were set adrift. Even Babcock involvement in the Type 31 frigate wasn't enough to keep them open.
There was never an intention to buy 4 OPVs. It was always 2 OPV with option for 3rd, and 1 EPV with an option for 2nd. The structure was never put in place for a 4th OPV, there isn't even space for one to tie up in Haulbowline. At least 1 P60 has to tie up in Cobh most of the time, with 3 ships out of service at all times due to manning issues or extended refit, there just isn't room for the remaining ships not on patrol to park up in the basin or on the Oil wharf.
And to think the Air Corps were refused a 2nd PC12NG because they had nowhere to park it..
If Babcock offered it with a flight deck, hangar, air search radar and accommodation for a platoon it could have been a direct replacement for Eithne, militarily useful and a good deal.
Whats happening in Haulbowline is a disgrace, the CoS has a lot to answer for, it was he who lobbied hard for P64 knowing full rightly there would be no one to crew it and no where to berth it, at the same time telling sailors you dont need accomadation and you should just sleep in tied up ships. The mess there can not be dumped at the door of the DoD but in Mellett's hands.
Had a small fraction of that €70 million spent on P64 had of been used to build accommodation in Haulbowline at the time the ship was ordered and as a DF wide retention package there would not be the retention crisis that currently exists.
If the Naval Service continues to suffer a net loss of 50 personnel per year they will loss a ship per year and will cease to exist in a decade.
Comment
-
-
it was not needed
the CoS has a lot to answer for, it was he who lobbied hard for P64 knowing full rightly there would be no one to crew it and no where to berth it
Could say the direct opposite in that he had the foresight to buy a ship just in case it would be needed, berthage since the removal of Irish Steel has never been a problem.
at the same time telling sailors you dont need accomadation and you should just sleep in tied up ships
Loss of people is not a naval problem alone with the army losing hand over fist to the private sector. Personally know of a Commandant who handed in his notice to walk in to a job with double his current salary...and he won't ave to serve 6 months away from home very couple of years to further his career.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View PostYou always need ships, even if you tie them up without crews it is always better to have them in waiting rather waiting for them to be delievered, especially when you have three nearing end of life.
,
Could say the direct opposite in that he had the foresight to buy a ship just in case it would be needed, berthage since the removal of Irish Steel has never been a problem.
Crews have been living on ships since the Corvettes and the issue predates the CoS, it having been identified on the acceptance of the minesweepers back in 1970 that shore side accommodation was required for ships crews , so it was hardly a revelation, again a modular built would cost the fraction of the cost of a ship , so someone is really penny pinching to aviod it.
Loss of people is not a naval problem alone with the army losing hand over fist to the private sector. Personally know of a Commandant who handed in his notice to walk in to a job with double his current salary...and he won't ave to serve 6 months away from home very couple of years to further his career.
The knock-on effect of this now is that the CPV's will not be replaced.
Berthage is a problem, as na grohmiti has said above. The Naval Service has started to spend millions on sorting it out.
Just because something has been happening for a long time doesn't make it acceptable. The Haulbowline accommodation issue has been brought to the Mellett's attention several times since he became CoS and every time his answer was they can just sleep in tied up ships they don't need accommodation. PDFORRA and RACO, as well as the current FOCNS, have finally got some movement on this issue, but the damage is done.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rhodes View PostThat's just ludicrous. Another ship was not needed and there was plenty of life lift in the ships that had to be tied up to crew it as well as the third one going next.
The knock-on effect of this now is that the CPV's will not be replaced.
Berthage is a problem, as na grohmiti has said above. The Naval Service has started to spend millions on sorting it out.
Just because something has been happening for a long time doesn't make it acceptable. The Haulbowline accommodation issue has been brought to the Mellett's attention several times since he became CoS and every time his answer was they can just sleep in tied up ships they don't need accommodation. PDFORRA and RACO, as well as the current FOCNS, have finally got some movement on this issue, but the damage is done.
The facilities at the Island need to grow to handle the linear length of all ships at 720m. The Dockyard also needs definite means to maintain ships at the base including dry dock facilities. It is never wrong to acquire replacement ships.In the case of any accommodation, the requirement is to house everybody in their assigned berth. There isn't a case to have double accommodation assigned i.e. berth on the ship and a standby berth ashore.
If you are allocated a capital budget to buy anything and don't for any reason, then the money returns to the exchequer. CoS doesn't control budget spending.Last edited by ancientmariner; 17 August 2020, 00:23.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Another way of looking at it would be that the 9th ship meant we had a class of 4 ships with the same equipment easing supply chain, training and increasing commonality in the fleet. It also forced DoD to do something about Haulbowline and meant that at least some of the Irish Steel site was required by the NS (Remember the plan for civvy apartments?). It also should have forced DoD to do something about recruitment and retention. I’m not saying that was the thought process.
It also looked like Appledore was closing so it was a good opportunity as all new builds for the NS have only been built in Verolme or Appledore So it would be a step into the unknown at a later stage. The Government (Due To the crash) also increased the length of time that the P60s would be paid over, this increased the overall price.
I’m surprised that they didn’t retire the CPVs (with the worst Accomodiation and being thirsty) at the same time and it is a much more capable (seakeeping wise) ship.
Accomodiation is required alongside for those who aren’t in sea going appointments (ie the 2 years ashore) plus for any ships in refit/drydock or extended NTM.
The Deirdre class may still be serviceable and operational (elsewhere) but the P60s are Much more capable and should be easier to maintain.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Anyone who thinks the P20s were serviceable when we disposed of them never had to sail on them in their final years service. P22 ploughing into a pontoon in Cobh was a warning. Recent surveys had found hull plating to be paper thin in the bow and keel, due to a major design flaw. The very same reason all japanese cars from the early 80s struggled with rust until they decided to get rid of the chrome trim.
The people of Cobh can sleep at night again, never more to be woken the sound of a P20 class returning from patrol. They had a distinctive noise and they were loud. I used to live a mile from Whitegate Refinery, and from my kitchen I could tell if a P20 was passing.
One of the ships would struggle to complete a patrol without the engine blowing a seal or gasket of some sort. We have the engineering branch to thank for keeping them in service for as long as they did.
The main armament was older than the ships and the ships were older than most of the crews, and unlike similar vessels elsewhere they spent their service taking everything the atlantic winters would throw at them.
Their time was up for our purposes. They won't be doing much heavy work in Malta, Libya or Nigeria. In time they will find they are no longer economic to maintain and they will be parked at some high profile location, with plenty of fresh coats of paint and lots of dress ship, but little in the way of operational use.Last edited by na grohmiti; 17 August 2020, 02:12.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rhodes View PostIf Babcock offered it with a flight deck, hangar, air search radar and accommodation for a platoon it could have been a direct replacement for Eithne, militarily useful and a good deal.
While Babcock was the builder and Level 2&3 designer the Level 1 overall concept design was with VARD and they have any number of designs that we could have chosen. In fact their first design for the P50 series included a flight deck but we did not want it even if we still in theory had helicopters capable of operating from it.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostAnyone who thinks the P20s were serviceable when we disposed of them never had to sail on them in their final years service. P22 ploughing into a pontoon in Cobh was a warning. Recent surveys had found hull plating to be paper thin in the bow and keel, due to a major design flaw. The very same reason all japanese cars from the early 80s struggled with rust until they decided to get rid of the chrome trim.
The people of Cobh can sleep at night again, never more to be woken the sound of a P20 class returning from patrol. They had a distinctive noise and they were loud. I used to live a mile from Whitegate Refinery, and from my kitchen I could tell if a P20 was passing.
One of the ships would struggle to complete a patrol without the engine blowing a seal or gasket of some sort. We have the engineering branch to thank for keeping them in service for as long as they did.
The main armament was older than the ships and the ships were older than most of the crews, and unlike similar vessels elsewhere they spent their service taking everything the atlantic winters would throw at them.
Their time was up for our purposes. They won't be doing much heavy work in Malta, Libya or Nigeria. In time they will find they are no longer economic to maintain and they will be parked at some high profile location, with plenty of fresh coats of paint and lots of dress ship, but little in the way of operational use.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostShips are made mostly of steel with areas of inter-metal connections. Every 10 years at least it is common to survey for plate thickness, then cut and replace thinning areas. It is why surveyors carry steel thickness meters. I sailed on two p20's for years, and didn't notice any design faults as all were built to the Plan. There were shortcomings in the first design due to a lesser standard of watertight integrity, which was corrected in the latter vessels. Gaskets are a problem on twin engine ships driving one propeller through a gear box. The idle engine is never as hot as the driving engine so if you bring it in for fuller speed without equalising temperatures on the cylinders, you are likely to blow a gasket. The only other reason is errors of skill in machining and fitting such gaskets and again running them in an retorqueing the cylinder top bolts. If you spend money on ships and refit then they can hold the line until the replacement is available. We were once let run to ZERO.
For the first 30 years these issues did not raise their head. It was only in the early 2000s that these hull problems became serious issues, as each ship approached their expected replacement date.
You seem to blame the engineering branch for some of the problems when the opposite was true. If it wasn't for them, we would probably have lost at least one P20 in their final years of service. The "can do-make do" attitude that prevails throughout the Defence Forces came to the fore again, when other forces would have taken the ship out of service until the replacement arrived.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostOddly, none of the issues you mention were what caused problems in latter days. Both Aoife and Aisling in later years went to sea with cement box repairs where steel plating should be, at a part of the hull that could only be repaired in drydock. Biter Ends were also an issue, almost impossible to repair due to the tank on the other side. On one survey the probe used to measure thickness in the chain locker went through the bulkhead.
For the first 30 years these issues did not raise their head. It was only in the early 2000s that these hull problems became serious issues, as each ship approached their expected replacement date.
You seem to blame the engineering branch for some of the problems when the opposite was true. If it wasn't for them, we would probably have lost at least one P20 in their final years of service. The "can do-make do" attitude that prevails throughout the Defence Forces came to the fore again, when other forces would have taken the ship out of service until the replacement arrived.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
That's just ludicrous. Another ship was not needed and there was plenty of life lift in the ships that had to be tied up to crew it as well as the third one going next.
If we had the people, 5 years is her max in service
Extra ships are never a bind, just look at the reserve fleets tied up all over the world.
The SLI accommodation is now only a problem where people can't afford to live out, in recent years barracks all over the country were moving SLI out rather than to heat , light and refurbish accommodation, has this trend reversed?
What has happened is there is a generational change in attitude towards what is acceptable, a three starr private or A /rate cannot cannot have Hollywood lifestyle nor is the DF obliged to provide them with that. If post to a ship, you live on the ship, facilities are damn better on ships than in any barrack block.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment