Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OPV Replacement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    No body is happy with the current state of the NS but there is unlikely in the short term to be enough trained crew to enable 5-6 vessels to remain operational. Given also that the fleet replacement plans have failed to build replacements for the Eithne, Orla & Ciara these vessels should now be retire as they are all over 35 years. Even if we launched a "Tender" process now it would be at least 2024 before the first vessel would arrive. IMHO it would now be better to wait for the outcome of the Defence Review before we commit to a new fleet make-up which will stay with us 30 more years!

    This may seem harsh to reduce to a 6 ship NS but it is better now to take a step back and decide what the future NS is going to be in the long term. Remember the Peacocks were only a gap filler purchase as the 3 sister ships of the Eithne were never built. So maybe out of the Defence Review would come a capability gap that again would see the need for 4 Eithne type vessels. IMHO it would be much wiser now to spend any available budget on giving the P60 class addition capabilities. They were designed to carry 3 TEU containers so there is the possibility to add containerised mission systems like MCM. Maybe even the 3rd RIB position could be modified to take a USV like the Atlas ARCIMS.

    If recruitment does improve and more crews are available then we could always work the P60 class harder. The RN River class are around 300 days per year at sea, our vessels tend to spend 220 days at sea. So as additional crew becomes availalbe we could move to first "3 crew/ 2 ship", and then to "2 crew per ship" to increase the total days at sea per year. The logic is that it is better to train new sailors on vessels that will be in service for decade rather than on vessels which in a year or two will be retired.

    While increasing the operational tempo of the P60 class would tend to shorten their operational life span it would not be so critical.

    Comment


    • #32
      Can’t afford to remove them from the fleet now with Brexit coming in 4 months.

      Depends on the maintenance schedule and serviceability I suppose, but if it was me I’d put the 2 vessels with the worst Accomodiation (Ciara & Orla) into extended NTM (we could potentially get a good price for them too when sold).

      I would say there will be no big decisions on the MRV or CPV replacements until after the Commission on Defence.... ASW frigates

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        No body is happy with the current state of the NS but there is unlikely in the short term to be enough trained crew to enable 5-6 vessels to remain operational. Given also that the fleet replacement plans have failed to build replacements for the Eithne, Orla & Ciara these vessels should now be retire as they are all over 35 years. Even if we launched a "Tender" process now it would be at least 2024 before the first vessel would arrive. IMHO it would now be better to wait for the outcome of the Defence Review before we commit to a new fleet make-up which will stay with us 30 more years!

        This may seem harsh to reduce to a 6 ship NS but it is better now to take a step back and decide what the future NS is going to be in the long term. Remember the Peacocks were only a gap filler purchase as the 3 sister ships of the Eithne were never built. So maybe out of the Defence Review would come a capability gap that again would see the need for 4 Eithne type vessels. IMHO it would be much wiser now to spend any available budget on giving the P60 class addition capabilities. They were designed to carry 3 TEU containers so there is the possibility to add containerised mission systems like MCM. Maybe even the 3rd RIB position could be modified to take a USV like the Atlas ARCIMS.

        If recruitment does improve and more crews are available then we could always work the P60 class harder. The RN River class are around 300 days per year at sea, our vessels tend to spend 220 days at sea. So as additional crew becomes availalbe we could move to first "3 crew/ 2 ship", and then to "2 crew per ship" to increase the total days at sea per year. The logic is that it is better to train new sailors on vessels that will be in service for decade rather than on vessels which in a year or two will be retired.

        While increasing the operational tempo of the P60 class would tend to shorten their operational life span it would not be so critical.
        You got your timelines mixed up there.
        The peacocks were never "stopgap", they were direct replacements for the 3 "Ton" class minesweepers, were bought at bargain price, and were far superior to other types being considered. The French P400 being one design that got mention at the time.
        P31 was well in service and Verolme Cork Dockyard long closed by the time they were Purchased. She was never to get 3 sister ships. One was proposed but the Irish Government didn't see the point of ordering a ship just to keep a failing dockyard open, in the middle of a recession when there were no other orders forthcoming. At that stage the dockyard had failed to secure an order from any customer outside the state in almost 10 years.A Research/Survey ship was also up for consideration, in the end the Government went to the Market and ended up with a Trawler based design, the Celtic Explorer, which is soon to be replaced.

        What was originally proposed in 1977 by the then Minister for defence was a new P21 class ship each year until there was 8 (including Deirdre).
        Instead of P24 though, we got P31. In 1978 the NS proposed a new design for a new generation of ship, a type that had nothing similar in use anywhere else. The initial renderings for the type bore no resemblance to the finished product( I wish a copy of same still existed, it featured in recruiting pamphlets from the early 80s), and huge cost increases and overruns came with designing a complex military vessel such as this from scratch. The fact we managed to get a finished ship delivered in a failing dockyard just six years after being proposed is thanks purely to the dedication of all involved in the design and construction, both Naval and Civilian. The cost however was 4 times that of the last P21 class to be built, double what was expected. The nation was on its knees, as the large industries that provided most general employment in the country closed down one by one, leaving a trail of destroyed communities behind. It took many years and lots of false starts before the IT sector replaced that core source of employment.

        So in summary when an 8 ship navy was first proposed we had CM10, 11 and 12, we had A15, P20 was in service and P21 was about to enter service. 6 ships.
        CM 10, 11 and 12 quietly slipped out of service in the mid to late 80s, (along with A15) and were replaced by P41 and P42 before the end of the 80s. P20 had matured, and some the design flaws had been ironed out (with the loss of one unnecessary mast and some bulwark replaced with railing) with much learnt from the introduction of P21, and P22 and P23 further dotting the I and crossing the T of OPV design. P31 was also fully introduced into service so that by 1990 we had a seven ship fleet of modern vessels.
        P32 will always be a lost opportunity, but I remember there being some legal issue regarding its design. Many other navies were interested in the type, but someone was unwilling to share the plans. Many say it was an opportunity missed to build P32 elsewhere, and let the builders take ownership of the design as part payment. We learnt in the late 90s that buying a ship off the shelf is far less costly than designing from scratch, and many small Navies had learnt the lesson long before.
        Many suggest the Fassmer OPV80 design is the logical progression on what the P31 design could have become. Flush deck, central accomodation block incorporating boarding boats in recessed areas amidships, twin funnel p&s with helideck extending all the way aft behind a full beam hangar.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DeV View Post
          Can’t afford to remove them from the fleet now with Brexit coming in 4 months.

          Depends on the maintenance schedule and serviceability I suppose, but if it was me I’d put the 2 vessels with the worst Accomodiation (Ciara & Orla) into extended NTM (we could potentially get a good price for them too when sold).

          I would say there will be no big decisions on the MRV or CPV replacements until after the Commission on Defence.... ASW frigates
          I know Brexit is around the corner and Fisher Protection duties will likely increase, but if the crews are not there ships cannot be put to sea. Let's concentrate having our most modern and capable vessels crewed and utilised as much as possible. At least the Commission on Defence will have the advantage of not having to guess what the post-Brexit situation will be.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            You got your timelines mixed up there.
            The peacocks were never "stopgap", they were direct replacements for the 3 "Ton" class minesweepers, were bought at bargain price, and were far superior to other types being considered. The French P400 being one design that got mention at the time.
            P31 was well in service and Verolme Cork Dockyard long closed by the time they were Purchased. She was never to get 3 sister ships. One was proposed but the Irish Government didn't see the point of ordering a ship just to keep a failing dockyard open, in the middle of a recession when there were no other orders forthcoming. At that stage the dockyard had failed to secure an order from any customer outside the state in almost 10 years.A Research/Survey ship was also up for consideration, in the end the Government went to the Market and ended up with a Trawler based design, the Celtic Explorer, which is soon to be replaced.

            What was originally proposed in 1977 by the then Minister for defence was a new P21 class ship each year until there was 8 (including Deirdre).
            Instead of P24 though, we got P31. In 1978 the NS proposed a new design for a new generation of ship, a type that had nothing similar in use anywhere else. The initial renderings for the type bore no resemblance to the finished product( I wish a copy of same still existed, it featured in recruiting pamphlets from the early 80s), and huge cost increases and overruns came with designing a complex military vessel such as this from scratch. The fact we managed to get a finished ship delivered in a failing dockyard just six years after being proposed is thanks purely to the dedication of all involved in the design and construction, both Naval and Civilian. The cost however was 4 times that of the last P21 class to be built, double what was expected. The nation was on its knees, as the large industries that provided most general employment in the country closed down one by one, leaving a trail of destroyed communities behind. It took many years and lots of false starts before the IT sector replaced that core source of employment.

            So in summary when an 8 ship navy was first proposed we had CM10, 11 and 12, we had A15, P20 was in service and P21 was about to enter service. 6 ships.
            CM 10, 11 and 12 quietly slipped out of service in the mid to late 80s, (along with A15) and were replaced by P41 and P42 before the end of the 80s. P20 had matured, and some the design flaws had been ironed out (with the loss of one unnecessary mast and some bulwark replaced with railing) with much learnt from the introduction of P21, and P22 and P23 further dotting the I and crossing the T of OPV design. P31 was also fully introduced into service so that by 1990 we had a seven ship fleet of modern vessels.
            P32 will always be a lost opportunity, but I remember there being some legal issue regarding its design. Many other navies were interested in the type, but someone was unwilling to share the plans. Many say it was an opportunity missed to build P32 elsewhere, and let the builders take ownership of the design as part payment. We learnt in the late 90s that buying a ship off the shelf is far less costly than designing from scratch, and many small Navies had learnt the lesson long before.
            Many suggest the Fassmer OPV80 design is the logical progression on what the P31 design could have become. Flush deck, central accomodation block incorporating boarding boats in recessed areas amidships, twin funnel p&s with helideck extending all the way aft behind a full beam hangar.
            Thanks for the clarification.

            The idea of a 4 ship class of P30's I got off this forum and it seems like I was not the only one:
            https://www.navalanalyses.com/2017/0...eet-today.html

            Comment


            • #36
              I don't know where they got that from.
              It was always 2 HPVs. At the time the Dockyard people were hoping against hope for orders for 2 HPV and 1 research vessel for the state, which could have been based on the P30 Hull, but it never made it as far as the drawing board.
              The government at the time committed when pushed to one HPV and only one. I know this because I had to use a dictionary to find what the word "reiterated" meant when newspapers of the day carried the headline that the "minister reiterated that there was no plan" to build a second helicopter carrying vessel at VCD.
              The Dockyard were feeding the idea to the press ear, in hopes of delaying the inevitable, by embarrassing the government into placing the order. The reality was the last Non government order for the yard was completed for Arklow shipping in 1977, and the last foreign order Was built for Lauritzen the same year.
              After that the orders were for:
              • Department of Defence (P21)
              • B&I Line
              • Department of Defence(P22)
              • Department of Defence(P23)
              • B&I line
              • Irish Shipping (Irish Spruce)

              with L.E.Eithne being the last vessel to be built there Delivered on the day the yard closed for shipbuilding on 1/10/1984.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • #37
                Given that air is cheap and steel is free, how about a bigger hull like the Arrohead 120? https://www.babcockinternational.com...EN-DIGITAL.pdf

                It's a big hull by our standards, which means better sea keeping and habitability and has massive froom for FFBNW.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  I don't know where they got that from.
                  It was always 2 HPVs. At the time the Dockyard people were hoping against hope for orders for 2 HPV and 1 research vessel for the state, which could have been based on the P30 Hull, but it never made it as far as the drawing board.
                  The government at the time committed when pushed to one HPV and only one. I know this because I had to use a dictionary to find what the word "reiterated" meant when newspapers of the day carried the headline that the "minister reiterated that there was no plan" to build a second helicopter carrying vessel at VCD.
                  The Dockyard were feeding the idea to the press ear, in hopes of delaying the inevitable, by embarrassing the government into placing the order. The reality was the last Non government order for the yard was completed for Arklow shipping in 1977, and the last foreign order Was built for Lauritzen the same year.
                  After that the orders were for:
                  • Department of Defence (P21)
                  • B&I Line
                  • Department of Defence(P22)
                  • Department of Defence(P23)
                  • B&I line
                  • Irish Shipping (Irish Spruce)

                  with L.E.Eithne being the last vessel to be built there Delivered on the day the yard closed for shipbuilding on 1/10/1984.
                  While the latter VCD timelines are as per fact the Yard closure was part forced by the Government of the Day who refused temporary financial assistance. The costings starting with P20 in 1972 and she cost about 1m Punts. It was 8 ships later that a start was made on P21 and by then the cost was going towards 4m Punts but she and her sisters were subbed by EU. After one more civilian build, P22 and P23 followed with bow thrusters and would be more expensive with inflation, maybe close to 6m +punts. They literally had zero military implications but were fine seaboats. The P31 started after Leinster and Irish Spruce, and in the overall, with the amount of external expertise, trials, equipments, involvement of Bureaus etc she was cheap at 24m+ Punts. I attended all meetings and extras were minimal with the vessel costing as anticipated.
                  The acquisition out of the Blue of the Peacocks was a strategic gesture between HMG and our Government due to the difficulties caused by PIRA, and to add teeth.
                  There has always been a sheet anchor attached to naval development with outcome being short of the sought capability, as in the case of 3 OPV's, and 1 HPV.
                  We are in the grip of " ah sure it will do" building ships now without flight decks and not meeting all the standards set by other small European Navies.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                    Given that air is cheap and steel is free, how about a bigger hull like the Arrohead 120? https://www.babcockinternational.com...EN-DIGITAL.pdf

                    It's a big hull by our standards, which means better sea keeping and habitability and has massive froom for FFBNW.
                    It would mean losing the troop/equipment lift element I would think.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      It would mean losing the troop/equipment lift element I would think.
                      What troop/equipment lift element do we have on the P50's?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        What troop/equipment lift element do we have on the P50's?
                        Thought we were talking about the EPV, as to replacing the 50's, given they are only just going through the MLU it's early to be scoping their replacements already imo.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If we are to replace P31 then we should increase the capability she had, not reduce.
                          The extra space her hull size provides would open us up to greater capability, but move us further from the EPV/MRV concept.
                          That said, priorities could change, now that the Russian embassy won't get the Spy HQ they wanted in Rathgar. If this is the same design the Type 31 is based on, then perhaps we would do well to bin the EPV and just put our lot in with the RN and get them to build us 2 ASW T31s instead.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            I don't know where they got that from.
                            It was always 2 HPVs. At the time the Dockyard people were hoping against hope for orders for 2 HPV and 1 research vessel for the state, which could have been based on the P30 Hull, but it never made it as far as the drawing board.
                            The government at the time committed when pushed to one HPV and only one. I know this because I had to use a dictionary to find what the word "reiterated" meant when newspapers of the day carried the headline that the "minister reiterated that there was no plan" to build a second helicopter carrying vessel at VCD.
                            The Dockyard were feeding the idea to the press ear, in hopes of delaying the inevitable, by embarrassing the government into placing the order. The reality was the last Non government order for the yard was completed for Arklow shipping in 1977, and the last foreign order Was built for Lauritzen the same year.
                            After that the orders were for:
                            • Department of Defence (P21)
                            • B&I Line
                            • Department of Defence(P22)
                            • Department of Defence(P23)
                            • B&I line
                            • Irish Shipping (Irish Spruce)

                            with L.E.Eithne being the last vessel to be built there Delivered on the day the yard closed for shipbuilding on 1/10/1984.
                            I remember that day well , we had a rib roast of beef for dinner that evening alongside the Oil Wharf , Sub Lt O' Donnell was the ships' first Duty Officer .
                            Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                              If we are to replace P31 then we should increase the capability she had, not reduce.
                              The extra space her hull size provides would open us up to greater capability, but move us further from the EPV/MRV concept.
                              That said, priorities could change, now that the Russian embassy won't get the Spy HQ they wanted in Rathgar. If this is the same design the Type 31 is based on, then perhaps we would do well to bin the EPV and just put our lot in with the RN and get them to build us 2 ASW T31s instead.
                              The RN is using the Arrowhead 140 for the Type 31 (a modified Iver Huitfeldt design) not the smaller 120 though, think the 120 is a different animal to the 140, also given the in service date for the 31's has now slipped to 2027 at the earliest that's a pretty long period to wait even more I would have thought if we are talking about the P31 replacement, though might factor for the P50's.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                                The RN is using the Arrowhead 140 for the Type 31 (a modified Iver Huitfeldt design) not the smaller 120 though, think the 120 is a different animal to the 140, also given the in service date for the 31's has now slipped to 2027 at the earliest that's a pretty long period to wait even more I would have thought if we are talking about the P31 replacement, though might factor for the P50's.
                                The Type 31e (e for export) you are looking at U.K.£250m a ship

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X