Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emergency towing vessel

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

  • No one, realistically, says that, the island, having an ETV capability is a bad idea !

    It is how it is delivered that’s the issue.

    Comment


    • The UK can afford to not have a dedicated ETV, due to (a) the French already have a few, that'll cover the south western approaches. (b) there are hundreds of OSVs working in the north sea, most of whom would be more than happy to tackle any salvage job that comes up. (c) most things that go wrong will end up beached in the shallow area of the west coast, Anything heading towards the bristol channel can be picked up by the many tugs working the Milford Haven ares.

      We do not have that luxury. There is 2 large ish tugs working the Shannon Estuary, 2 more in Bantry Bay. At a push the tugs working the Refinery in Cork could assist, but they are not designed to be ocean going.

      The People In Donegal/Sligo/Mayo/Galway will just have to keep their fingers crossed.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Only if requested by the owner (in which case salvage is involved) or State (only to prevent pollution), as I understand it that is the legal situation

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
          Only if requested by the owner (in which case salvage is involved) or State (only to prevent pollution), as I understand it that is the legal situation
          Search and rescue element of ships in trouble was never a matter between owners and salvors. The State claiming jurisdiction also takes on responsibility for good order and discipline in the adjacent waters, together with ships directed by the Maritime Co-ordination Center. If we had a Cruise ship incident comparable with the recent one in Northern waters, I think responsibility would become abundantly clear. The States mission for Coastal areas is to maintain the access to and safety of the Sea Lanes. It has nothing to do with Smits Tugs or any salvage company.

          Comment



          • ETV Positions N&W Europe 13th August 2012 from the IRCG Report PDF Page 15


            Either we know something that nobody else knows or we have not been paying sufficient attention to the issue.


            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            2012 - best value for money option is a time charter from a competent contractor. A bollard tow of 100-150 tonnes would be sufficient to mitigate the vast majority of incidents. In the context of a MPV, a BP of 80-100 tonnes would still provide considerable utility
            Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
            ..ETV procurement was put on the long finger [by DoD/NS], to politically lubricate the P60 programme..

            Originally posted in: >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
            I don't offer any direct criticism of past priorities, just to acknowledge the need to strip the NS acquisition programme to it's least complex form, to come to terms with political realities of the time.

            That the most comprehensive fleet renewal in the history of the service was achieved, in the teeth of the worst state finances most of us can remember, is an exemplary achievement.

            Now that the last of the P60s has been commissioned, and much of the initial prepatory work for Eithne's replacement is underway, this may be the first opportunity to consider how future priorities might be aligned. Unfortunately this is well out of synch with the White Paper process. I understand the ambition to have steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021. I just don't see how this can be achieved given the bandwidth that will be taken up at Naval Headquarters and the DoD by the EPV project.
            Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 6 May 2019, 00:29. Reason: Grammar, Formatting, IRCG not IRGC!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              ETV is a firebrigade exercise with reasonable probability of being required in these days of Cruise liners with thousands of souls on board. Weather patterns are of a more aggressive nature. In the 50's and 60's it was not unusual to have famous tugs , such as Turmoil , stationed at Cobh, for the winter period. ETV operations are as relevant as OIL RIG Standby Vessels - ERV- ERRV's who are continuously on station in one per rig.
              Naval standing forces are a resource for providing manpower for a suitable vessel with a useful bollard pull .The question is do we acquire an Ocean towing vessel OR add the capability to the MRV. Towing requires reasonable grip in the water ( Draft ) which would be more available to an MRV rather than the OPV's. The Difficulty will be that there may be only one MRV and location will be subject to chance and prior tasking.

              Originally posted in: >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
              The whole Emergency Towing proposition is underlaid by so many interacting and compounding variables that it, like quantum physics or warfare, can only ever be a matter of probabilities rather than assured outcomes.

              I want to be on here arguing for four OPV/ETV hybrids, and once harboured a not-so-secret plan as to how the NS might achieve that, over time.



              Extract from previous post 11th April 2016


              My understanding of how high-speed ERRVs function is that they can transit at relatively high speeds because they only take on towing ballast after they reach the incident site. This basic notion is the source of my belief that such a vessel could make a fine basis for a NS OPV/ETV hybrid.
              Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 5 May 2019, 19:50. Reason: Grammar, Formatting

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                The whole Emergency Towing proposition is underlaid by so many interacting and compounding variables that it, like quantum physics or warfare, can only ever be a matter of probabilities rather than assured outcomes.

                I want to be on here arguing for four OPV/ETV hybrids, and once harboured a not-so-secret plan as to how the NS might achieve that, over time.

                My understanding of how high-speed EERVs function is that they can transit at relatively high speeds because they only take on towing ballast after they reach the incident site. This basic notion is the source of my belief that such a vessel could make a fine basis for a NS OPV/ETV hybrid.
                Your proposals have value. I might point out ballasting at sea is viable in vessels designed to do so. The breadth of an undivided tank is cubed in the free surface calculations. Long narrow wing tanks are favoured. The main practical difficulty is the size of the Naval Service and it's ability to station the required number of ETV's at pertinent locations e.g Killybegs, Valentia, Waterford Harbour. Manning would always be critical and training in Towing operations and off ship firefighting essential. As a start, a single ETV based in Cork could cover the South and South west coasts .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  The main practical difficulty is the size of the Naval Service and it's ability to station the required number of ETV's at pertinent locations e.g Killybegs, Valentia, Waterford Harbour. Manning would always be critical and training in Towing operations and off ship firefighting essential. As a start, a single ETV based in Cork could cover the South and South west coasts .

                  (Conceptual examples only)

                  Ideally a fleet of OPV/ETV hybrids would operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P60s while simultaneously providing ETV cover.

                  Availability for expeditionary missions, including MCM, would be subject to the usual operational constraints.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post

                    (Conceptual examples only)

                    Ideally a fleet of OPV/ETV hybrids would operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P60s while simultaneously providing ETV cover.

                    Availability for expeditionary missions, including MCM, would be subject to the usual operational constraints.
                    While at risk of delving into CPV replacement territory, An ETV would not be suitable for MCM for the most part. ETVs are deep draft vessels, they need to be for thrust and stability. Many have propulsion arrangements that protrude well below the hullform. However they would be a consideration if Unmanned mine clearance craft were to be used, but that is a whole other, costly area that we have no recent experience in.
                    So you are talking about having a crew trained to do very specialised salvage towing, as a secondary function, on one hand, and mine countermeasures as a secondary military function, on the other hand, all while maintaining their primary roles of Fishery protection and EEZ patrol.
                    It is too much to expect of crews, when you are struggling to retain, that they become experts in two very different roles.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                      Suggest split new Future MCM Capabilities from current CPV Replacement thread.
                      They are inextricably linked



                      Defence White Paper (2015)
                      Originally posted in: >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement (Edited here for relevance and clarity)
                      "..similar vessels with counter-mine and counter-IED capabilities."



                      Would suggest that, perhaps in a purely legalistic sense, a Vard-7-80 design with a containerised MCM/UIED capacity aboard would meet the strict prescription.

                      Would free up fleet-numbers for two ETVs, but would this approach be sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                        While at risk of delving into CPV replacement territory..
                        Where angels fear to tread..

                        Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                        An ETV would not be suitable for MCM for the most part. ETVs are deep draft vessels, they need to be for thrust and stability. Many have propulsion arrangements that protrude well below the hullform. However they would be a consideration if Unmanned mine clearance craft were to be used, but that is a whole other, costly area that we have no recent experience in.
                        So you are talking about having a crew trained to do very specialised salvage towing, as a secondary function, on one hand, and mine countermeasures as a secondary military function, on the other hand, all while maintaining their primary roles of Fishery protection and EEZ patrol.
                        It is too much to expect of crews, when you are struggling to retain, that they become experts in two very different roles.
                        Accepted in it's entirety.

                        How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?

                        Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                        ..sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?

                        Comment


                        • How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?

                          Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                          ..sufficient to meet NS operational, retention and development objectives in MCM/UIED?
                          Have reproduced the above on >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement for continuation of MCM/UIED discussion there.



                          Appreciating that the procurement capacity at Naval Headquarters and the DoD will likely be preoccupied by Eithne's replacement, and that there may be a declining prospect of seeing steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021..

                          There may actually be an opportunity to lay out a comprehensive case for 2 (+2) high-speed-ERRV derived OPV/ETV hybrids in the meantime.

                          Two as fleet replacements for the Peacocks, whose role (in this scenario) will be taken by the P50s, and two as new additions to the fleet.

                          Four high-speed OPV/ETV hybrids would be able to operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P50s and P60s while simultaneously providing comprehensive ETV cover.

                          This arrangement would likely provide the most effective combined return on State expenditure available. The NS should be prepared to recieve the IRCG's next approach on this matter affirmatively, in principle, at least.




                          High-Speed Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel
                          Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 6 May 2019, 01:43. Reason: Clarity

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
                            How about basing the MCM/UIED capability on the P50s and P60s?



                            Have reproduced the above on >Navy & Naval Reserve >CPV Replacement for continuation of MCM/UIED discussion there.



                            Appreciating that the procurement capacity at Naval Headquarters and the DoD will likely be preoccupied by Eithne's replacement, and that there may be a declining prospect of seeing steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021..

                            There may actually be an opportunity to lay out a comprehensive case for 2 (+2) high-speed-ERRV derived OPV/ETV hybrids in the meantime.

                            Two as fleet replacements for the Peacocks, whose role (in this scenario) will be taken by the P50s, and two as new additions to the fleet.

                            Four high-speed OPV/ETV hybrids would be able to operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P50s and P60s while simultaneously providing comprehensive ETV cover.

                            This arrangement would likely provide the most effective combined return on State expenditure available. The NS should be prepared to recieve the IRCG's next approach on this matter affirmatively, in principle, at least.




                            High-Speed Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel
                            A 10 vessel fleet when they crews for 7 ?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post

                              (Conceptual examples only)

                              Ideally a fleet of OPV/ETV hybrids would operate a common/complimentary patrol pattern with the P60s while simultaneously providing ETV cover.

                              Availability for expeditionary missions, including MCM, would be subject to the usual operational constraints.
                              Can’t provide MCM cover if they are also ETVs

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post

                                ETV Positions N&W Europe 13th August 2012 from the IRCG Report PDF Page 15


                                Either we know something that nobody else knows or we have not been paying sufficient attention to the issue.






                                I don't offer any direct criticism of past priorities, just to acknowledge the need to strip the NS acquisition programme to it's least complex form, to come to terms with political realities of the time.

                                That the most comprehensive fleet renewal in the history of the service was achieved, in the teeth of the worst state finances most of us can remember, is an exemplary achievement.

                                Now that the last of the P60s has been commissioned, and much of the initial prepatory work for Eithne's replacement is underway, this may be the first opportunity to consider how future priorities might be aligned. Unfortunately this is well out of synch with the White Paper process. I understand the ambition to have steel cut for the first of the P40's successors before the next White Paper cycle begins in 2021. I just don't see how this can be achieved given the bandwidth that will be taken up at Naval Headquarters and the DoD by the EPV project.
                                Very much doubt the P40 replacement will be even looked at till after 2021

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X