Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emergency towing vessel

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The difference being a ship of this type could do normal naval roles (and fulfil some EPV functions) if operated in naval hands. The Scandanavian navies operate Patrol vessels with Tug characteristics, and every vessel at sea can be a Tug, if first on scene.
    Well if it was to happen today it would have to be contracted out - there would be no choice as the NS even with an uplift in establishment couldn’t man it and quite possibly part of a multinational agreement.

    There for me would appear to be 3 key issues:
    - must be multi role
    - must be fast (min max speed 21 kts, which is generally unusual for ETVs)
    - the savage crew needs to be experienced and trained

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
      The difference being a ship of this type could do normal naval roles (and fulfil some EPV functions) if operated in naval hands. The Scandanavian navies operate Patrol vessels with Tug characteristics, and every vessel at sea can be a Tug, if first on scene.
      Scandinavian ETV's are are operated by their Coast Guards:
      Finland, it is the a bit complicated, 2 vessels are owned and crew by the Ministry of the Environment but under the control of the Navy. The biggest vessels is also owned by Ministry of the Environment but crew by the Navy. None of the Finnish vessels do any patrol work. All vessels are unarmed as per their civilian role.

      Sweden, the three Damen MPV 8116 vessels are owned and operated by the Swedish Coast Guard.

      Norway, the Coast Guard own and operate the vessels. However the Norwegian CG is more like the USCG and in time of war would have a military function. Thus in Norway the CG vessels are armed and undertake fishery protection along with other functions to secure the border.

      Denmark has no ETV's or coastguard.

      Iceland has only its Coast Guard, no navy.

      IMHO there is less argument for the NS owning and manning ETV's than their is for the AC operating SAR.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        Scandinavian ETV's are are operated by their Coast Guards:
        Finland, it is the a bit complicated, 2 vessels are owned and crew by the Ministry of the Environment but under the control of the Navy. The biggest vessels is also owned by Ministry of the Environment but crew by the Navy. None of the Finnish vessels do any patrol work. All vessels are unarmed as per their civilian role.

        Sweden, the three Damen MPV 8116 vessels are owned and operated by the Swedish Coast Guard.

        Norway, the Coast Guard own and operate the vessels. However the Norwegian CG is more like the USCG and in time of war would have a military function. Thus in Norway the CG vessels are armed and undertake fishery protection along with other functions to secure the border.

        Denmark has no ETV's or coastguard.

        Iceland has only its Coast Guard, no navy.

        IMHO there is less argument for the NS owning and manning ETV's than their is for the AC operating SAR.
        Under Laws controlling outfitting of ships there is the requirement to carry a towline, line throwing apparatus, and a means to Tow or be Towed. This is because being a drifting casualty is a probable event for a proportion of ships at any one time, especially in harsh weather conditions when fuel delivery pipes can badly fracture and engines are shut down by emergency shut-down systems with no reversals. The problem about ETV's is who should provide. It is not just a commercial undertaking or obligation. A vessel can be in a seriously hazardous location requiring saving large numbers of lives and preventing a pollution incident occurring . Such incidents requires rapid deployments of Rescue Helos and ships capable of salvage type towing. Some merchant vessels may be able to undertake such work but not all may be able to do so without some self endangerment. A lot will depend on the size and type of responding vessels and the skills of the Masters. The only proper response is a Salvage type Tug.
        Last edited by ancientmariner; 6 November 2020, 17:30.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          Under Laws controlling outfitting of ships there is the requirement to carry a towline, line throwing apparatus, and a means to Tow or be Towed. This is because being a drifting casualty is a probable event for a proportion of ships at any one time, especially in harsh weather conditions when fuel delivery pipes can badly fracture and engines are shut down by emergency shut-down systems with no reversals. The problem about ETV's is who should provide. It is not just a commercial undertaking or obligation. A vessel can be in a seriously hazardous location requiring saving large numbers of lives and preventing a pollution incident occurring . Such incidents requires rapid deployments of Rescue Helos and ships capable of salvage type towing. Some merchant vessels may be able to undertake such work but not all may be able to do so without some self endangerment. A lot will depend on the size and type of responding vessels and the skills of the Masters. The only proper response is a Salvage type Tug.
          Totally agree and as the NS has again recently shown is that it does have the capability to tow certain vessels when they are in distress. With the provision of ETV's they should also be stationed near the majority of marine traffic. When it comes to large vessels this is then the Irish and Celtic Seas, so any ETV should be on station in these areas. An ETV patrolling off Donegal is of no use to a cargo ship off Hook head for instance. I would welcome the ICG getting two or three ETV's with a bollard pull of at least 100 tons, better would be 200 tons.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            Totally agree and as the NS has again recently shown is that it does have the capability to tow certain vessels when they are in distress. With the provision of ETV's they should also be stationed near the majority of marine traffic. When it comes to large vessels this is then the Irish and Celtic Seas, so any ETV should be on station in these areas. An ETV patrolling off Donegal is of no use to a cargo ship off Hook head for instance. I would welcome the ICG getting two or three ETV's with a bollard pull of at least 100 tons, better would be 200 tons.
            In general, when Salvage tugs like Turmoil and others were around, they were based in Key Traffic lane Ports such as COBH. I know there is a National SAR plan and it covers what we will do. It was published in 2019 and is heavy into co-ord without mentioning how they will handle the situation when the task is beyond the states assets. The key interface for SAR is a large knowledge Base of the major passenger vessels that transit our waters including Cruise liners. Do we have a Notice issued similar to MSN 1878 covering provision of Vessel data and photograph for the rescue agencies. Recommended training exercises both on board and with the rescue agencies. MSN 1878 is worth a read.

            Comment


            • We are lucky, in some ways that our southwestern approaches also have some of our larger ports. Bantry Bay has its own salvage company, equipped with the former Thrax, now Ocean Challenger, with a 62T BP.
              Port of Cork is lucky to have homeported Ocean Spey, a former "Anchor Cranker" with a 150T BP and Mainport Pine, with 60T BP. However, the imminent closure of the Kinsale Gas field may mean they could end up working elsewhere.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • This is the Norwegian vessel. It is armed:

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                  This is the Norwegian vessel. It is armed:

                  https://www.kongsberg.com/maritime/p...12-coastguard/
                  Could come in handy when offering terms and conditions for salvage /towing .
                  Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

                  Comment


                  • Posted recently on the Russian Bomber Thread. AKA Defending the Irish Airspace.

                    Salient elements reproduced here.

                    Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                    There was one trailing a wire in the Porcupine not long ago
                    Tu-142MR 'Orel' Bear J ELF C3 Relay

                    Sounds like a submarine comms exercise



                    The activities of SSBNs, SSGNs, and SSNs on our continental shelf are almost entirely unmonitored, at least by ourselves. Particularly irksome is the practice of sitting on the bottom for extended periods of time in order to gain situational awareness advantage. It's not just that, crudely put - the water may not be ours, but the ocean floor is.

                    It's an environmental concern; that through accident, miscalculation, or recklessness we end up with a major environmental incident on our hands. An incident that we are currently without means to contain, mitigate, or dissuade. To this end; I believe a, CBRN capable, high availability Rescue & Emergency Towing capability is required.

                    Dissuasion means getting back into the business of ASW. Making life less comfortable for everyone sitting on the Porcupine Bank, and adjacent areas. Even a minimal modular capability, rotated between the P50s and P60s, would be a powerful statement of intent. It's about encouraging the thermonuclear armed squatters to get off our lawn.

                    Next time a Bear comes down the Atlantic coast we shouldn't concern ourselves about sending up fighters. We should use a Casa MPA to intercept it, dropping active sonar buoys all the way along it's track!

                    Would be like turning on the lights in a henhouse.

                    I'm all for developing an effective air policing capability, and more, should the instability in great power relations continue. But realistically we have a decade of infrastructure and support development to do, after the defence commission report, before we can make a final commitment. In the meantime we have other priorities that can, and need, to start to be addressed.
                    Think that covers a major facet of the ETV argument succinctly.
                    Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 16 November 2020, 17:48.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                      Posted recently on the Russian Bomber Thread. AKA Defending the Irish Airspace.

                      Salient elements reproduced here.



                      Think that covers a major facet of the ETV argument succinctly.
                      While there is a need for vessels to provide EMERGENCY tows in SAR, and deal with specific instances of pollution requiring spraying etc. Having such capability should NOT depend on our offshore communal submarine playgrounds or those that use it. The old NBCD was always at the forefront of training. Did the Long course at HMS Excellent 50 years ago. Ships were always fitted with fixed or portable prewetting systems to wash off active dust. Likewise ships had installed a monitoring system to detect fallout. There are more modern systems now for ships that can detect the presence or leaking of dangerous materials aboard ships. The MRV should be able to do most things.

                      Comment




                      • an ETV with a large area aft, a crane and spare Accomodiation could be very useful:

                        - dive platform (with the various NSDS containers etc)
                        - MCM platform (with USVs, ROVs etc)
                        - sub surface surveillance (with containerised VDS (if deemed suitable, USVs, ROVs etc)

                        UK is converting 2 offshore support vessels to “Multi-role ocean surveillance ship”



                        Comment


                        • Better still, why not get something that already has the Dive Support infrastructure built in?
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	671
Size:	357.6 KB
ID:	738172
                          ​​​

                          Edda Sun - Østensjø (ostensjo.no)
                          Heli deck suitable for S92, and not perched on top of the superstructure, like many vessels of this type.
                          There is a downside though, when you go down this route is you lose some BP capability. You only get 250+T BP with the larger Anchor Handling tugs, which ar every much limited to lifting heavy things from the seabed, or pulling heavier things with DP.​

                          NZ went down this route for their Dive Support ship, and the same vessel (formerly owned by the above company) just recovered half a Billion worth of cocaine floating at sea..
                          Attached Files
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment




                          • Mine/IED countermeasures equipment suitable for ETV.

                            No longer relevant to CPV replacement thread.. I guess.

                            Comment


                            • If only we had an ETV

                              A major salvage operation is underway to recover a trawler which ran aground off Wexford just hours before a drugs 'mother ship' carrying 2.2 tonnes of cocaine was detained in a dramatic operation by the Naval Service off the Cork coast.

                              Comment


                              • Think this may have come up before but NSDS have a cabined craft

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X