Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

River class Patrol vessels..

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

  • #91
    agree. have been saying the same thing elsewhere on the forum. It is bad and inexplicable in professional terms. Whoever is responsible will, as usual, escape scrutiny or consequence while the NS will struggle with this defect-for it is that- for the life of these ships. It is such a pity and it would have taken so little to futureproof these vessels.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Marius View Post
      agree. have been saying the same thing elsewhere on the forum. It is bad and inexplicable in professional terms. Whoever is responsible will, as usual, escape scrutiny or consequence while the NS will struggle with this defect-for it is that- for the life of these ships. It is such a pity and it would have taken so little to futureproof these vessels.
      Did you ever consider that they are future proofed and the decision was made to have the deck capable of operating UAV and ROV, instead of wasting space on heli ops where no suitable helis are currently in use or proposed?
      If you think it takes "little" to add a helideck to a design, you are grossly mistaken.
      Keep in mind that there already exists 2 variants of this design equipped with a helipad. Those who know about these things decided the option was unsuited to our needs.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
        Did you ever consider that they are future proofed and the decision was made to have the deck capable of operating UAV and ROV, instead of wasting space on heli ops where no suitable helis are currently in use or proposed?..
        so 'future proofed' for 30-odd years - but only insofar as allowing them to operate currently operated/planned systems?

        interesting version of 'future proofed'...

        i don't think there's anything stopping a vessel with a flight deck operating UAV's or ROV's, but theres definately something stopping a vessel with a flight deck working with helicopters - moreover, i don't think anyone is suggesting welding a flight deck onto the thing halfway through building it, rather dissapointment t choosing a design from the outset that didn't have one...

        perhaps the NS aren't thick, but found that politicians and MOF aren't either - if you build ships with flight decks, at some stage some bright spark will ask why you don't fly helicopters from them..?

        so, can you educate us - give us 3 reasons why you would not want a flight deck on a patrol vessel?

        Comment


        • #94
          Having a heli deck (or a heli ) on a NS unit would be a prime example of having the tail wag the dog.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
            so, can you educate us - give us 3 reasons why you would not want a flight deck on a patrol vessel?
            1. We don't have the experience required. We tried to start from zero before, but once the knowledge went, it was gone for good.
            2. We have no military aircraft in the island capable of landing on a naval vessel.
            3. We were down this road before, we couldn't justify the need for a helipad, hence there is now a large crane in the corner of what was Eithne's helideck to make some use of the space.
            4. 90% of the time, during patrol conditions, it is impossible to carry out heli ops on a vessel of this size. You may have noticed when foreign helicopter equipped naval vessels of all sizes visit, they rarely have their heli aboard. The reason is, the USN/RN/French have already accepted this fact, and send their valuable air assets somewhere they can be useful.
            5. A helideck is not just a flat bit of deck. It is fitted with navaids, tie down points, and most importantly a safe place for the required crew to work. If you are not using it for helicopters, you can't use it for much else.

            I give you the following clips in my defence.




            The above is in good conditions.
            This is normal Western Approaches conditions.



            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • #96
              anyway the etender for the OPVs and EPVs has expired... not sure exactly what this means, but details for the EPVs were to be given at stage 2... assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reached. https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/pu.../PublicTenders
              "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
              "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

              Comment


              • #97
                The tender for the OPVs became a contract (and the option has been exercised).

                Giving that the closing date was over 6 years ago any EPVs would probably have to be tendered for again as the submission (and prices) would be out of date.

                If we want more OPVs, the tender woułd probably be put out again

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                  1. We don't have the experience required. We tried to start from zero before, but once the knowledge went, it was gone for good.
                  2. We have no military aircraft in the island capable of landing on a naval vessel.
                  3. We were down this road before, we couldn't justify the need for a helipad, hence there is now a large crane in the corner of what was Eithne's helideck to make some use of the space.
                  4. 90% of the time, during patrol conditions, it is impossible to carry out heli ops on a vessel of this size. You may have noticed when foreign helicopter equipped naval vessels of all sizes visit, they rarely have their heli aboard. The reason is, the USN/RN/French have already accepted this fact, and send their valuable air assets somewhere they can be useful.
                  5. A helideck is not just a flat bit of deck. It is fitted with navaids, tie down points, and most importantly a safe place for the required crew to work. If you are not using it for helicopters, you can't use it for much else....
                  with respect, you are conflating having a flightdeck with its use in the current EEZ, and only that. i'm talking about the possible need to operate the ships in the Med, or the Baltic, the Arctic, off west Africa or in the Indian Ocean..

                  i would suggest that future proofing the vessel means equipping it, or allowing it to be equipped in the future, with capabilties you do not currently need, but might do in the service life of the vessel.

                  i would remind you that these vessels will be in service in 2045/2050 - the equivilant of predicting in 1980 what the defence needs/doctrine/posture of 2015 would be. in 1980 Charlie Haughey was Taoiseach, the PIRA hunger strikes had not yet happened: anyone who had predicted in 1980 than in 35 years Irish troops would have been operating under NATO command in Afghanistan for a decade, or had undertaken EU operations in Chad, that Ireland would be member of NATO PfP, or that Irish troops would be operating under UK command on a mentoring/training mission in Mali, would, i think, have been locked up and put on some very strong medication.

                  predicting what won't be the situation 20 or 30 years down the line is a fools errand - by building vessels that can't do flight ops for the next 35 years the Irish government has almost certainly shot its successors feet.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    so, can you educate us - give us 3 reasons why you would not want a flight deck on a patrol vessel?
                    1. We don't have the experience required. We tried to start from zero before, but once the knowledge went, it was gone for good.
                    2. We have no military aircraft in the island capable of landing on a naval vessel.
                    3. We were down this road before, we couldn't justify the need for a helipad, hence there is now a large crane in the corner of what was Eithne's helideck to make some use of the space.
                    4. 90% of the time, during patrol conditions, it is impossible to carry out heli ops on a vessel of this size. You may have noticed when foreign helicopter equipped naval vessels of all sizes visit, they rarely have their heli aboard. The reason is, the USN/RN/French have already accepted this fact, and send their valuable air assets somewhere they can be useful.
                    5. A helideck is not just a flat bit of deck. It is fitted with navaids, tie down points, and most importantly a safe place for the required crew to work. If you are not using it for helicopters, you can't use it for much else.
                    Thats 5...stop..you'll confuse them.

                    Given the Eithne / Air corps experiment was given 6 years with One detention resulting from the helo ops in its designated primary role, a role that is no longer required, can you not see the lessons learned that there are now alternatives to having to be able to operate a Helo from naval vessel.

                    The CG/ NS argument, its not going to happen ever..ever because of the politics involved between the departments involved. Neither will surrender its budget to do the others job.

                    There is no requirement for the CG to be able to operate from Naval vessels neither is there a service provider in the world that can do so. The cost of having an operator capable of operating would make the contract unfeasible.

                    predicting what won't be the situation 20 or 30 years down the line is a fools errand - by building vessels that can't do flight ops for the next 35 years the Irish government has almost certainly shot its successors feet.
                    the current class will not be fitted for flight OPs..end of!

                    Given we don't know what the next class will be we can't say there will or won't be a flight Ops option but there would have to be a radical mindset change across the board, massive investment in the flights ops aspect alone before it could happen. You won't see it within 10 years.

                    The government or europe won't spend money on a 'just in case ' basis.

                    You need to put forward a business case, and given the last shot at is still to be seen in living grey and can be identified as a failure in the role and people associated with the project are alive and well and still serving....not going to happen anytime soon.

                    There are many arguements why it should be there, we are telling you the reality of why its not there and what the barriers are.
                    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                    Comment


                    • assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reache
                      Correct, may never be reached if building OPVs proves to be cheaper and they are reckoned to be more efficient.
                      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                        anyway the etender for the OPVs and EPVs has expired... not sure exactly what this means, but details for the EPVs were to be given at stage 2... assume stage 2 for the EPV was never reached. https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/pu.../PublicTenders
                        They were not tenders, they were RFPs. OPV went to stage 2, request for tender. EPV did not. The tender above is for consultants, effectively to delay the decision as long as possible at the time, thanks to that limerick moustachio'd gobshite.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          Thats 5...stop..you'll confuse them.

                          Given the Eithne / Air corps experiment was given 6 years with One detention resulting from the helo ops in its designated primary role, a role that is no longer required, can you not see the lessons learned that there are now alternatives to having to be able to operate a Helo from naval vessel.

                          The CG/ NS argument, its not going to happen ever..ever because of the politics involved between the departments involved. Neither will surrender its budget to do the others job.

                          There is no requirement for the CG to be able to operate from Naval vessels neither is there a service provider in the world that can do so. The cost of having an operator capable of operating would make the contract unfeasible.



                          the current class will not be fitted for flight OPs..end of!

                          Given we don't know what the next class will be we can't say there will or won't be a flight Ops option but there would have to be a radical mindset change across the board, massive investment in the flights ops aspect alone before it could happen. You won't see it within 10 years.

                          The government or europe won't spend money on a 'just in case ' basis.

                          You need to put forward a business case, and given the last shot at is still to be seen in living grey and can be identified as a failure in the role and people associated with the project are alive and well and still serving....not going to happen anytime soon.

                          There are many arguements why it should be there, we are telling you the reality of why its not there and what the barriers are.
                          If you change "still Serving" to "Still Flying" I'll give you a like.

                          Comment


                          • They don't need helipads the same way they don't need ASW or AA suites. Or indeed 76mm guns.
                            but it's a lot more odd to have a naval ship without a gun, and the gun takes up less room than an unused helipad. If we can ever afford naval air, we can afford new ships for 'em.
                            ships that could actually be some use if someone fired anything bigger than a 12.5 at them.

                            Comment


                            • If you change "still Serving" to "Still Flying" I'll give you a like
                              Given the guy who did the trials for the AW139 has been retired over a year I don't see any deck rated helo pilots still in service, although there may be Dauphin qualified peeps.

                              But the first FDO is !
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment


                              • The EPV was/is to be capable of HIFR (as an option) and to have a flight deck spot for a non-organic 10 metric tonne helo (with no ship borne facilities for launch or recovery)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X