Really???
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
OPV Replacement
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostHere we go again.
Dev, look around you. If you live in Ireland, or anywhere else, you will see that we are in the middle of a recession. Coming up with €190m for anything, let alone 3 ships, is a near impossibility, and the NS did well to secure a contract for 2 ships in the current climate. The EPV is not on the shelf. Trust me on that. Where the economy will be in 2014 will decide how we pay for it. As it stands, the delayed entry of the new ships into service is as a direct result of the McCarthy report. Prior to that the NS were ready for contracts in 2008 and had the economy not calved, and contracts signed at that stage, we could have had ships built by now. McCarthy decided ships would be replaced at 36 years, not 30 as originally planned.
Lets take Emer as an example (as the oldest vessel in the fleet).
Emer was commissioned in 1978, she should have been replaced in 2008. While the vessel is not going to fall apart at 30 years and 1 day, with more modern and efficient technology, the new vessels are much more cost efficient to run and man.
Lets look at the timeline:
Feb 1998 - Report to the Steering Group on the Review of the NS and AC - recognised that she was due for replacement in 2008 and that in order to be delivered the first payment should be made in 2006 - this gave the Government 8 years to prepare a tender
Aug 2007 - RFP for OPVs published (Emer 29 years old)
May 2008 - Closing date for RFTs
Sept 2008 - Ireland official entered recession
May 2009 - Preferred bidder selected
July 2010 - Government approval given to enter negotiations
Oct 2010 - Contract awarded
2011 - Original planned delivery of first vessel (Emer 33 years old)
April 2011 - McCarthy Report published
Early 2014 - First vessel due for delivery (Emer will be 36 years old)
2015 - Second vessel due for delivery
2017 - Final payment due
7 years to get a relative small vessel into service and it isn't as if the powers that be don't have relatively recent experience of this (with Roisin and Niamh).
In comparsion, planning for Eithne (and I mean the outline plan) started in 1979, the keel was laid within 3 years and it was commissioned 2 years later in 1984 (and that was with serious delays in the shipyard).
Originally posted by Seanachie View PostStrikes me as a little strange that it took you three weeks to come up with a question in relation to the post and as such I'll take it as trolling and not dignify it with a response.Last edited by DeV; 6 January 2012, 01:21.
Comment
-
You are greatly mistaken with eithne(not surprisingly). The concept was first put forward in 1978, but the speed of construction bypassed the tender process totally, as its construction was vital to keep a semi-state dockyard open for business. There was no tender, there was barely a contract, and the design changed during construction numerous times. The Budgeted amount that became the cost of Eithne was supposed to build Eithne, Her sister chip, and a civilian research ship of similar design. It was built in a dockyard that had nothing else to do, and had the facility and staff to build three ships at the same time, all concentrating on building one ship. You cannot compare.
Read your own post regarding the timeline, and as usual, you are contradicting your own "opinion". All of the delays were outside the control of the Naval service. I presume this is who you mean by "powers that be". You also leave out the external consultants who reviewed the tenders before acceptance. There is a difference between RFP and RFT. The RFT was much later than you state, and the delayed payment is a cost saving measure. A government cannot prepare a tender until it has accepted Proposals first. It then invites successful proposors to tender, the proposers return to their offices and do so. It isn't a question of sending them a drawing of a ship and saying "build this please" (as was the case for Eithne).
Keep in mind also that L.E. Roisin, replacement for Deirdre, was only contracted in 1997, Having first been proposed in 1995. It arrived in 1999. We were "awash with money" at the time, according to a former minister for finance, and Appledore were then a standalone company, struggling to survive. Since Niamh was built, they went into liquidation, and were taken over by DML, then Babcock. Considering what happened the Medium Lift heli contract, I would not be surprised if the tender process was accellerated in the earlier case to keep the shipyard open.
At the end of the day dev, the NS/DoD cannot even talk about looking for any new piece of equipment, unless they get the nod first from Dept Finance.
But anyway, what is your point? Why do you keep coming in here and criticising the procurement process, and affirming that it will never happen? What is your angle?
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostYou are greatly mistaken with eithne(not surprisingly). The concept was first put forward in 1978, but the speed of construction bypassed the tender process totally, as its construction was vital to keep a semi-state dockyard open for business. There was no tender, there was barely a contract, and the design changed during construction numerous times. The Budgeted amount that became the cost of Eithne was supposed to build Eithne, Her sister chip, and a civilian research ship of similar design. It was built in a dockyard that had nothing else to do, and had the facility and staff to build three ships at the same time, all concentrating on building one ship. You cannot compare.
Read your own post regarding the timeline, and as usual, you are contradicting your own "opinion". All of the delays were outside the control of the Naval service. I presume this is who you mean by "powers that be".
You also leave out the external consultants who reviewed the tenders before acceptance.
There is a difference between RFP and RFT. The RFT was much later than you state, and the delayed payment is a cost saving measure. A government cannot prepare a tender until it has accepted Proposals first. It then invites successful proposors to tender, the proposers return to their offices and do so. It isn't a question of sending them a drawing of a ship and saying "build this please" (as was the case for Eithne).
Keep in mind also that L.E. Roisin, replacement for Deirdre, was only contracted in 1997, Having first been proposed in 1995. It arrived in 1999. We were "awash with money" at the time, according to a former minister for finance, and Appledore were then a standalone company, struggling to survive. Since Niamh was built, they went into liquidation, and were taken over by DML, then Babcock. Considering what happened the Medium Lift heli contract, I would not be surprised if the tender process was accellerated in the earlier case to keep the shipyard open.
At the end of the day dev, the NS/DoD cannot even talk about looking for any new piece of equipment, unless they get the nod first from Dept Finance.
But anyway, what is your point? Why do you keep coming in here and criticising the procurement process, and affirming that it will never happen? What is your angle?
- the NS is current operating 3 vessels (of 1 class) that wouldn't be as cost efficient or effective as they once were
- that they will eventually be replaced by up to 3 vessels of 1 class which are among the world leaders (if Roisin and Niamh are anything to go by)
- if the process had started when it should have started we could now have in service 5 vessels of 1 class (ie Roisin/Niamh (I'm aware there are some differences)) and all the cost efficiencies that would come with that - having said that they wouldn't be as capable as the newer ones should be
I guess my bottom line is like so many things, the Government of the day, prioritised (themselves and developers) before the needs of the State. To this cost
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pod View PostThis strikes me as yet another meaningless however well-intention "conversation".
Was anybody posting on this thread actually present in the DoD or NS planning office when any of these decisions were made ?
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
if the process had started when it should have started we could now have in service 5 vessels of 1 class (ie Roisin/Niamh (I'm aware there are some differences))
Had the continued on with the P50 class as it was we would have ended up with five ships with the same uncorrected faults.
the P20 and P21s were different classes and each improved on each other, it to 10 years to get the classes into service, all four vessels, all built in Ireland with the spec changing everytime, each one being an improvement over the other.
having said that they wouldn't be as capable as the newer ones should be
I think it should be noted that since the P50s came on stream the service has not stood still and there has been huge aquisition and changes around how the remainder of the fleet was upgraded in line with some of the equipment introduced with the new ships.
Eithne for instance has had major changes to what boats she carries and how
All the PVs and CPVs and OPV have had their secondary armament changed, along with various other electronic and mechanical upgrades.
To carry out all this work has probably cost the equivalent of a new ship over the time since the P50s were delivered ,juts to keep what we have on a level playing field without going off and building new vessels while the older ones become substandard.
What if funding had not been granted for the new builds and we had built a third P50 and not spent the money on upgrades, you can be sure that we would be in a far worse place that we are now, given the running costs of the P50s in comparrison to the PVs.Probably would have ended up with the three P21 class out of service and a third or possibly two P50s tied up due to fuel consumption issues.
Worst case scenario at this point Emer gets decommissioned pending the delivery of a P60, and the remainder get ied up as replacement for them arrives,hoping the P60s will be more fuel efficient than their immediate predecessors.
Hands up I wasn't around in those days. I knew that it was Eithne that was keeping the dockyard open, the delays, cost overruns and sister ship (but not about the civvy ship and lack of tender).
Read 'Fifty Years a Ship Builder' by Patrick G Martin for the definitive version on how the DoD and the Army and Irish Shipping, made a bollocks of the Eithne saga.( great ship that she is !)Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Worst case scenario at this point Emer gets decommissioned pending the delivery of a P60, and the remainder get ied up as replacement for them arrives,hoping the P60s will be more fuel efficient than their immediate predecessors.
The P60s will be more efficent. The gearbox in them will alow them to be driven at slow speeds by the generators. EG overnight steaming. So thats prob one engine as well so it will be minimum fuel used during this process.Last edited by A/TEL; 6 January 2012, 17:31.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
The P60s are based on the P50s, similar design extended (having said that the internal arrangements could be completely different).
The P50s have been around long enough that they (should) know the problems/improvements that could be made (having said that the only real way you can find out if something works is to build it).
The lessons learnt should be incorporated into the new vessels and (if possible) upgrades made to the older vessels to make them as similar as possible.
Worst case scenario at this point Emer gets decommissioned pending the delivery of a P60, and the remainder get ied up as replacement for them arrives,hoping the P60s will be more fuel efficient than their immediate predecessors.
In 2010, the patrol days were cut by 200 days, has it been increased since?
That is the equivalent of 1 less vessel in the NS, so why not tie it up/sell Emer?
I'm sure that the NS (like the rest of the DF) is losing people, so it could take the pressure of other sea-going personnel.
The major problem?
DOD / Finance see oh you can do the job with a 7 ship flotilla?! Then you don't need a replacement!
Read 'Fifty Years a Ship Builder' by Patrick G Martin for the definitive version on how the DoD and the Army and Irish Shipping, made a bollocks of the Eithne saga.( great ship that she is !)
Comment
-
The P60s are based on the P50s, similar design extended (having said that the internal arrangements could be completely different).
The P60s will be more efficent. The gearbox in them will alow them to be driven at slow speeds by the generators. EG overnight steaming. So thats prob one engine as well so it will be minimum fuel used during this process
(having said that the only real way you can find out if something works is to build it)
Same happened with the P50s, what looks good on paper isn't always the way it works on water, Niamh is an improvement on Roisin but both have similar basic faults that were only found after operational service.
The change in hull lenght will throw up more uncertainties, so while lessons are learned there are unpredictable qualities good and bad.
That is the equivalent of 1 less vessel in the NS, so why not tie it up/sell Emer?
I'm sure that the NS (like the rest of the DF) is losing people, so it could take the pressure of other sea-going personnel
Sure is,but the people who are going are not going to be able to be replaced short term, its experience in man years thats been lost.There is sufficient experience to replace them short term but across the DF the skills base can't be left wanting because of embargoes on recruitment and promotion.Its one thing to kill a service because of a lack of ships, they tried that before didn't work, but starve it of man power is another issue.
Any idea where you can get it ? Amazon says it is out of print.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
The Surface Security, Interdiction and Maritime Support System, SIMSS
Interesting concept!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostNow that's multi-role!
(Link not working though)"Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"
Comment
Comment