3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

ancientmariner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119069217#Comment_119069217

There definitely was media commentary, in print, that the "Option" would be LOA 2 + elements of 3. However it needs to be implemented in a deliverable and implementable fashion and meet the key parameters of assignment, housing, operator and technical training, manuals, and continuation training and maximum trade guarantees. The Navy needs definite Ports of deployment and supports for all new tonnage. The accommodation re-use at Dunlaoghaire is not helpful. It appears that throughout Government re-assignment of properties, or disposal of same, is not always in the interests of Defence needs. We have two ships on the way with no where to go except in a commercial open port.

Larbre34

Let's face it, it's never Defence needs.

I agree that the decision of DLR Council is very unhelpful, but what's the betting that the DoD has been slow to act and haven't begun planning for an East Coast home port for the Lake Class boats.

It's not to late for them to intervene with the Council and take over the redevelopment of the Coastguard Station for Naval use, consistent with its history and the function of a working Harbour.

roadmaster

There is plenty of piers along the East Coast the goverment could take for a base and build a modern purpose built facilty including accomadation.

In regards to a drydock if the state ever coped on to build a new one for the navy they should tie in with the NMCI for training purposes to help deliver skills in ship repair

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119070392#Comment_119070392

Media commentary is very ill informed.

LOA2 says:

6.5 Capabilities in the Maritime Domain

LOA 2 The Commission considers that a step up to LOA 2 should seek to deliver:

• • Improved surveillance of Irish territorial waters, the Irish EEZ and the extended Continental Shelf;
• Increased presence of Naval vessels to respond to challenges to Irish sovereignty and sovereign interests;
• • Establishment of an underwater survey and mine counter measure capability to secure access to vital Irish ports; and
• • Enhancement of sub-surface capabilities to monitor sub-sea cables.

To achieve this would involve building on current capability levels in a manner that would mean that by 2030, or shortly thereafter, the Naval Service could conduct maritime security and policing operations in Ireland’s EEZ on a more extensive 24/7/365 basis utilising a balanced fleet of a minimum of nine modern ships including a multi role vessel (MRV). This modern fleet would deliver a minimum of 2,000 patrol days per year, approximately twice the current level, involving at least 220 days at sea per vessel. With this level of capability, and subject to Government policy considerations, there would also be a realistic prospect of more regular Naval Service participation in overseas peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations.

The fleet should have enhanced air, surface and sub-surface search capabilities, supported by appropriate modern technology including ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and unmanned ship-borne RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) providing tactical airborne capabilities. The fleet’s sub-surface capabilities should allow the Naval Service to monitor activity in the vicinity of sub-sea cables. The fleet should also be equipped with weapon systems capable of deterring aggressive acts against the State, or its infrastructure, in the maritime domain and have mine counter measure capabilities to detect and destroy sea mines. In terms of the latter, the Commission considers that keeping Ireland’s sea lines of communication open, including access to our ports, is of vital national importance. It is the Commission’s view that at least two vessels should possess maritime mine counter measure capabilities.

The maritime surveillance capability of the two new Air Corps maritime patrol aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2023 will greatly enhance the recognised maritime picture available to the Naval Service and will be a critical enabler for Naval Service operations.

Additionally, in the context of maritime surveillance, the Commission has noted the lack of a national coastal radar surveillance capability. The Commission believes that in collaboration with other maritime organisations, the Naval Service could play a valuable role in the development of such a capability and recommends a staged process be undertaken, with a pilot project in a small number of sites to assess the feasibility of an ‘in- house’ approach to the development of a coastal radar capability.

The Commission also believes that, in the context of a fleet size of nine modern ships, provision for double crewing would ensure maximum time at sea for all vessels. It is considered that a double crewing establishment per ship would optimise output from the fleet and would maximise the return on the substantial financial investment involved. The Commission acknowledges that switching to a double crewing approach will take time and, inter alia, would require a more rapid ship replacement programme, with each ship and its crews required to deliver an absolute minimum of 220 days at sea per year. To achieve this across nine ships by 2030 would be very ambitious, with a likely consequential requirement to upgrade current infrastructure for berthage and associated ship maintenance, but it is clear to the Commission that an accelerated ship replacement programme would be required initially for the three oldest vessels in the fleet, followed by the replacement during the next decade of the two P50 class vessels. These P50 class vessels, which are currently undergoing a mid-life refurbishment and extension programme, and the current P60 class vessels, which are the newest in the fleet, can deliver the minimum required days at sea to support double crewing. New vessels acquired as part of an accelerated vessel replacement programme must also be capable of supporting this minimum requirement. In line with the recommendation to substantially increase the patrol days of the Naval Service through double crewing, the current 90% metric for patrol days focused on fisheries duties would be inappropriate for the future. Smart metrics should be developed and agreed between the Naval Service and the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) focused on quality and effectiveness of enforcement activities rather than quantity. This should allow for an appropriate balance of overall sea going activities and also for more impactful fisheries enforcement.

Allied to this, the Commission believes that a more comprehensive patrol programme would also be facilitated by the establishment of a naval support base or bases, making use of existing port facilities at locations in the west and east, which would allow for faster deployment and would facilitate replenishment of fuel, fresh food and water, and the removal of waste. The location of a support base on the west or east coast, for example, combined with double crewing of vessels, would facilitate ships remaining at sea for longer periods as they would no longer have to return to Haulbowline for replenishment and crew changeover. Such a base would Page 32 Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces require only a minimum staffing level. The Commission believes that the operation of such a support base would also encourage higher numbers of applicants to join the Naval Service from the local coastal areas where there are traditionally strong community and family affiliations with the fishing industry and the maritime sector generally.

The Commission believes LOA 2 would ensure all current obligations can be met, but also offers a considerably enhanced situational awareness and deterrence capability compared to LOA 1 throughout our maritime domain. The Commission envisages, however, that this LOA would deliver a limited defensive conventional maritime warfighting capability, but, in conjunction with other Defence Forces’ capabilities, it would deliver a real maritime defence capability and a comprehensive maritime picture. This level of ambition would also enable Government to contribute more regularly to maritime peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations, as required, and substantially enhance national SAR capabilities.

ancientmariner

We all know what the recommendations of the Commission are, so we wait to see "what will turn up". There is an inevitability that matters will deviate depending on perceived needs. If you read the fitted specification for our last flagship, it sounds like we should be re-ordering her outfit and capabilities as well as continuing her use for air surveillance and tracking.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119071268#Comment_119071268

It definitely reads that someone in the CoDF noticed the loss of capability as her original systems were wound down. Indeed it would be fair to say any Post CoDF vessel should have her systems and equipment as a minimum baseline.

Larbre34

Jaysis, I hope we can be more ambitious than the spec of a 38 year old ship.

I'd like to think that between the Commission recommendations and the advice of Houlders, the DoD can be prevailed upon to, at last, l consider a vessel that is state of the art today and will give 30 years of good service, just like her predecessor.

donvito99

The original Eithne spec - sonar, air/surface search radar, helo deck and hangar - is still right in the ball park. Just needs to be bigger for more flexibility.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119072137#Comment_119072137

One would hope so, until you consider nothing since built for the NS has had either Sonar(not just a depthfinder), Air Search radar, a helipad, Hangar or an Ops room.

shillyshilly

we're getting 9 paddleboards and 9 sets of binoculars....

with an availability of 180 days as there isn't manpower available

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119073678#Comment_119073678

Thank you for that enlightening contribution to the discussion. Did you come up with it yourself or did you read it in a book?

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119073935#Comment_119073935

You're welcome!

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119071268#Comment_119071268

Would love your thoughts on this article.

Plea to convert LÉ Eithne into Cork naval museum, rather than selling it for scrap (irishexaminer.com)

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119075389#Comment_119075389

I wonder have these councillors discussed how much money those museum ships take to stay accessible condition? Have they done any study into sustainable visiting numbers or where to put her? I still think it’s a stupid idea but if Cork Council want to do this then it should be strictly their funding and any private donations without a cent coming from the Defence budget at any stage. I imagine she will end up rusting away or scrapped the first time major bills come in to the council.

Larbre34

Eithne shouldn't be a museum. She should be used as a static training ship for new recruits to the Naval Service Reserve.

The recruits could maintain her while receiving systems training and being accommodated on-board for short camps. She could take scout and school groups for short educational stays as well, when not in use for NSR training.

All manner of navigation and seamanship skills could be taught and computer simulators of more modern systems could easily replace the fitted types.

To develop the thought, she could become an asset of the National Maritime College for all manner of practical and in-service training, and if security at the base was an issue for all of this, she could be permanently moored at the NMCI jetty and used for accommodation and special events, celebrations, open days etc, while being managed by the College administration.

Tabnabs

Having had the pleasure of a nautical education at the precursor to the NMCI, the value of a training ship is very limited. We spent most of our time aboard the Cill Airne in the classroom doing the same material we did in the college. The engineers got a bit of experience, but on an engine that was then unique to Ireland...

Giving a MN cadet a chipping hammer and paintbrush is not the way to look after any poor ship. The cost for crewing, operating and maintaining a vessel of the size that you suggest is beyond the budget or interest of the College.

The experience was of little merit ultimately as cargo handling, bridge command, fire and life saving appliances are the main responsibilities of a humble junior deck officer.

A nice idea, but it's not the ship for that job.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119076075#Comment_119076075

You also? DB, Toft & Goff arguing on the bridge about who was captain...

Bosun Willie (RIP) "Smoko"!

I must agree that my limited time aboard the training ship did nothing to prepare me for working aboard a merchant vessel. We didn't have timber deckboards or railings to sand and varnish, no hand cranked davits with oared lifeboats and not only was our helm not brass that required frequent polishing, it wasn't even a wheel. Engine telegraphs were also not found aboard my ship, which had an unmanned engineering space. Indeed I learnt far more on a week aboard Asgard II, and plans are well advanced to replace this with a 3 masted Barque, under the Umbrella of a number of organisations, including NMCI.

The vast array of simulators in NMCI do far more to prepare new entrants to the merchant marine. There would be no advantage putting these on a naval vessel.

Apparently it was popular with engineers because her ancient engines started in a similar manner to the system used by large Tankers even if her "board" went "live" now and again.

jonnybigwallet

I suppose the green lobby would be opposed to sinking it in the Atlantic?

Would make a great bit of practice for the Navy and Air Corps!

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119076985#Comment_119076985

Its not just the green lobby. Using the ocean as a dumping ground is not the act of a modern nation.

To sink a ship as a sinkex, it must be cleared of all articles aboard that are potential maritime pollutants. Try to remember if you dump **** at sea, it will in time end up in the food chain.

Brenatron100

Someone will have to empty the contaminants eventually anyway, why not do that and sink it as an articifical reef and dive training site, in the Harbour or in one of the West Cork inlets?

Anything is better than risking it ending up as a Warlord's yacht in West Africa.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119078056#Comment_119078056

At a guess, if the state wants to sinkex her, they have to pay all the costs for however much shite needs to be taken off her, if she’s sold for scrapping whatever company buys her will have built in the costs for doing that in their offer and the state doesn’t end up paying silly money for cleaning her up. A completely different scale of ship but there once was a documentary on sinking one of the old Essex class carriers in the states and the scale of clean out was huge.

jonnybigwallet

I believe there is a firm on Tyneside that do this type of work...

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119078084#Comment_119078084

The Liquid pollutants seem obvious, but then also its the removal of all other non-natural matter such as synthetic wall linings & poil based paint all pvc insulated cables, even the soot build up within the exhaust chambers and air intakes (not seen since the day it was built) before all you have left is the bare steel hull.

Its quite a task.

Of course the cutting torch deals with all these issues, and the disposal of its by-products is already factored in, with the breakers environmental licence.

Widdensushi

Surely she has a scrap value, steel is expensive now.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079642#Comment_119079642

Any scrap value will be offset by the costs of all the work as mentioned. Again for example some of the conventional USN carriers were transferred for just a dollar.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119079642#Comment_119079642

She has, but unlike an old car, you can't just crush her and weigh the steel recovered. (If only).

Proper breaking is methodical and costly.

There's possibly about 1000 tonnes of steel in her. Currently €280/tonne. Will 280000 cover the cost of breaking her?

Brenatron100

Any use to our old pals the Maltese? 10 more years of light work in the gentle Mediterranean?

Edit: I notice Malta has recently taken delivery of a very handsome 75m Helicopter Patrol Ship, so probably not.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119081202#Comment_119081202

No, their manpower situation is as bad as ours nearly, they don’t have the spare people to crew another ship, or I’d imagine the budget to keep Eithne operational, her time has come, like many before her.

Dohvolle

Plus their keyboard warriors would be apoplectic if we unloaded yet another "rustbucket" on them.

They are on their own path now.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119081366#Comment_119081366

To be fair keyboard warriors aside, they did welcome the hull, seem to remember chatting to one of the crew afterwards who was very embarrassed about the attention the complaint got.

But yeah they have their new hull and no need for Eithne.