3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Morpheus

Tabnabs

P62 Alongside the fitting out berth in Appledore north Devon

gallag

Tabnabs wrote: »

P62 Alongside the fitting out berth in Appledore north Devon

beautiful ship, looks a very light steel on the side, looks like she has been docked hard a few hundred times.

Larbre34

gallag wrote: »

beautiful ship, looks a very light steel on the side, looks like she has been docked hard a few hundred times.

It'll tap out

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

beautiful ship, looks a very light steel on the side, looks like she has been docked hard a few hundred times.

Hey at least she isn't like the early Type 42 batches that needed additional strengthening added to them due to structural issues...

BowWow

nowecant wrote: »

I think we need to change the name of this thread from "2 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service" to "3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service"

I disagree - one is already delivered and commissioned, so "2 new vessels" is more correct:D:D:D

BoJack Horseman

Is the long term plan to procure 6-8 'Beckett class' vessels?

Or is there a chance the fleet will be mixed up a bit ?
(Maybe with smaller/faster vessel)

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is the long term plan to procure 6-8 'Beckett class' vessels?

Or is there a chance the fleet will be mixed up a bit ?
(Maybe with smaller/faster vessel)

Who knows at the moment, but I'd take a guess and say that there won't be smaller/faster ships...

The Beckett's were enlarged for Atlantic sea states, and the demand is still going to be there (smarter to build for the worst and be able to operate in calmer waters IMO), as for faster you get into fuel cost issues. One of the drivers for the Beckett's was to improve the fuel efficiency over the P50's.

I'd still love to see 6-8 P50's/P60's along with 2 EPV's but... Wait and hope for the White Paper I guess.

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

Who knows at the moment, but I'd take a guess and say that there won't be smaller/faster ships...

The Beckett's were enlarged for Atlantic sea states, and the demand is still going to be there (smarter to build for the worst and be able to operate in calmer waters IMO), as for faster you get into fuel cost issues. One of the drivers for the Beckett's was to improve the fuel efficiency over the P50's.

I'd still love to see 6-8 P50's/P60's along with 2 EPV's but... Wait and hope for the White Paper I guess.

Would an EPV be just a Beckett with bigger fuel/food stores?

Or would that be a different platform altogether?

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Would an EPV be just a Beckett with bigger fuel/food stores?

Or would that be a different platform altogether?

The suggestions around pre crash were something that would be able to provide sealift/support for the Army for deploying on UN operations. I think they were looking at something at least 2/2.5 times the tonnage of the Beckett's. Some suggestions were something like the Absalon class or the New Zealand Canterbury class.

gallag

I think the type 26 global combat ship would be perfect for Ireland! Get in early for a good deal, the Tomahawks might be overkill but could swap them out to asters for some anti air. probably get them for about €300m

mikeym

gallag wrote: »

I think the type 26 global combat ship would be perfect for Ireland! Get in early for a good deal, the Tomahawks might be overkill but could swap them out to asters for some anti air. probably get them for about €300m

:eek:

Silvera

The current edition of 'Warships International Fleet Review' (a monthly magazine available in Easons) has an excellent 3-page article (with photos) about the Naval Service - with a focus on the new NS ships.

Interesting it states "The new OPV's boast electric drives that save over 60 percent in fuel compared to previous Irish vessels of the type".
Thats some saving in fuel costs!

The article also covers recent NS trials of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV's).

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

I think the type 26 global combat ship would be perfect for Ireland! Get in early for a good deal, the Tomahawks might be overkill but could swap them out to asters for some anti air. probably get them for about €300m

Not a chance, the Type 26 for the RN with the majority of the pricey equipment coming from the 23's is still going to be over the £400 million price at best (forget the wiki entry) and given BAe's record more likely over £500 million. I'm fairly sure that if you wanted the same kit it would cost more). Not too mention all the other support infrastructure that we would have to build to support it (here's a hint forget the Tomahawks the US would never sell them, also the Asters are fecking expensive themselves). Something like the Absalon would be more inline, the sealift, the helicopter capability, the low cost and if we did want to move into the air defence could carry the ESSM's and have the greater user base than the Aster's/CAMM's.

Heraldoffreeent

gallag wrote: »

I think the type 26 global combat ship would be perfect for Ireland! Get in early for a good deal, the Tomahawks might be overkill but could swap them out to asters for some anti air. probably get them for about €300m

How many though? would 8 or 10 be enough?

sparky42

Silvera wrote: »

The current edition of 'Warships International Fleet Review' (a monthly magazine available in Easons) has an excellent 3-page article (with photos) about the Naval Service - with a focus on the new NS ships.

Interesting it states "The new OPV's boast electric drives that save over 60 percent in fuel compared to previous Irish vessels of the type".
Thats some saving in fuel costs!

The article also covers recent NS trials of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV's).

Might have to go pick that up, but yeah they put a lot of effort into improving the fuel efficiency with improvements in the low speed performance and the engine Power take Off system. They actually put a lot of planning/study into the Beckett's both to meet their needs and to avoid screw ups in the design.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

How many though? would 8 or 10 be enough?

8-10 Type 26's?!:eek::eek::eek:
Are you joking? The RN is only going to have 13 at the very best (and given the 45's that;s not a certainty...

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

8-10 Type 26's?!:eek::eek::eek:
Are you joking? The RN is only going to have 13 at the very best (and given the 45's that;s not a certainty...

:P

sparky42

Something I've always kind of wonder about regarding the EPV design to be selected is the Cobh Graving dock. It's 21.3m wide, that kind of limits the selections. the Canterbury design is too large (so a costly redesign), the Absalon has just under 2m's to spare... Wonder what the design would be selected?

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

The suggestions around pre crash were something that would be able to provide sealift/support for the Army for deploying on UN operations. I think they were looking at something at least 2/2.5 times the tonnage of the Beckett's. Some suggestions were something like the Absalon class or the New Zealand Canterbury class.

Interesting concept.
And something certainly worthy of consideration.

A command & support vessel would be a serious statement for Ireland's ambitions as a peacekeeping & humanitarian provider.

Hopefully the mandarins will be ambitious.

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

Something I've always kind of wonder about regarding the EPV design to be selected is the Cobh Graving dock. It's 21.3m wide, that kind of limits the selections. the Canterbury design is too large (so a costly redesign), the Absalon has just under 2m's to spare... Wonder what the design would be selected?

Wasn't there also a variation of the Meko 200 proposed?

The Canterbury was never a runner, it kept being mentioned at the time because the Kiwi's were getting one, but that design would never have suited the bucketing about the North Atlantic that the NS do.

Its really just a car ferry painted grey.

nowecant

The Irish Naval Service have just released some more pics onto their FB page

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.731527450263487.1073742048.101764433239795&type=1

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Interesting concept.
And something certainly worthy of consideration.

A command & support vessel would be a serious statement for Ireland's ambitions as a peacekeeping & humanitarian provider.

Hopefully the mandarins will be ambitious.

We can hope, but there's issues like the yard that did the Absalon's is now closed, the Canterbury had significant issues and needed extra funding to get fixed.

Honestly I'd love the Absalon as it buys you the potential for a range of services from humanitarian to current warfare. Clearly we would be unlikely to have them fitted as the Danes do right now but the potential is there.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Wasn't there also a variation of the Meko 200 proposed?

The Canterbury was never a runner, it kept being mentioned at the time because the Kiwi's were getting one, but that design would never have suited the bucketing about the North Atlantic that the NS do.

Its really just a car ferry painted grey.

The Meko 200 MRV, I think, I don't know has any navy actually built one of them? Not certain in the current climate that the Navy/Government would sign off on a untried design. The Absalon's are there and proven wish we'd signed the contract for them pre crash:(

Still not sure why the Kiwi's went for the Canterbury design (an Irish sea design) but if we wanted a true Amphib only I'd go for something like the Singaporean Endurance class, but that wouldn't fill the patrol criteria.

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

The Meko 200 MRV, I think, I don't know has any navy actually built one of them? Not certain in the current climate that the Navy/Government would sign off on a untried design. The Absalon's are there and proven wish we'd signed the contract for them pre crash:(

Still not sure why the Kiwi's went for the Canterbury design (an Irish sea design) but if we wanted a true Amphib only I'd go for something like the Singaporean Endurance class, but that wouldn't fill the patrol criteria.

Personally, I think the EPV was a concept dreamed up to get the NS some frigate style capability (A capacity which wouldn't go amiss IMO).
The actual re supply/support/hospital ship yadda yadda was window dressing so the crusties woudn't shout FRIGATES????? OHHHHH MYYYY GAAAWWWDDD!!!

Amphibs were probably never a high priority, as I'd imagine the idea that the Army might have to roll up on a beach some where, ALA Private Ryan, isn't part of their doctrine.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Personally, I think the EPV was a concept dreamed up to get the NS some frigate style capability (A capacity which wouldn't go amiss IMO).
The actual re supply/support/hospital ship yadda yadda was window dressing so the crusties woudn't shout FRIGATES????? OHHHHH MYYYY GAAAWWWDDD!!!

Wouldn't be the first time a navy pulled that trick, remember the RN. The Government said no carriers, so they went with "Through Deck Cruisers" instead:D. I think it was a combination of what you suggested along with trying to buy support from the Army/Foreign Affairs etc to try and sell it politically and publicly. It would have been great to see two of them in the Basin. Even if they went with the RN style of "fitted for not with" and put hardware on the long finger it would still be huge jump forward

Amphibs were probably never a high priority, as I'd imagine the idea that the Army might have to roll up on a beach some where, ALA Private Ryan, isn't part of their doctrine.

Pretty much nobody does rolling up the beach ala WW2 anymore, but Amphibs do give you plenty of sealift/humanitarian support, and in fairness the Endurance's are dirt cheap.

beauf

gallag wrote: »

beautiful ship, looks a very light steel on the side, looks like she has been docked hard a few hundred times.

Walked around the other one and a few people mentioned the same thing. Is that usual? Looking at the HMS ships they have the same appearance.

sparky42

beauf wrote: »

Walked around the other one and a few people mentioned the same thing. Is that usual? Looking at the HMS ships they have the same appearance.

I think it's pretty common at this stage, though the RN went a bit over board with the early 42's that had to have strengthening added:D;)

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

Wouldn't be the first time a navy pulled that trick, remember the RN. The Government said no carriers, so they went with "Through Deck Cruisers" instead:D. I think it was a combination of what you suggested along with trying to buy support from the Army/Foreign Affairs etc to try and sell it politically and publicly. It would have been great to see two of them in the Basin. Even if they went with the RN style of "fitted for not with" and put hardware on the long finger it would still be huge jump forward


Pretty much nobody does rolling up the beach ala WW2 anymore, but Amphibs do give you plenty of sealift/humanitarian support, and in fairness the Endurance's are dirt cheap.

Oh yes indeed, and that happens in many other spheres too.The FFnW would be ideal were we to send a Ship to EUNAVFOR for example, where some modicum of anti-missile defence could be fitted, at the moment any of the NS fleet would be incapable of defending against a guy with a MANPAD on a skiff for example, sure we could blow it out of the water, but that would probably be too let once the guy had loosed off.

I suppose my issue with Amphib is that, again, the vessel will spend 80% of its time somewhere 200 miles off shore in the NA performing its primary function. An amphib is probably neither economically viable, or suited to the sea states out there.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Oh yes indeed, and that happens in many other spheres too.The FFnW would be ideal were we to send a Ship to EUNAVFOR for example, where some modicum of anti-missile defence could be fitted, at the moment any of the NS fleet would be incapable of defending against a guy with a MANPAD on a skiff for example, sure we could blow it out of the water, but that would probably be too let once the guy had loosed off.

That's true, and there's plenty of other operations that it could allow us to be involved in. Though I suppose it's not just hardware, we'd also need to have a political leadership willing to send her on such deployments...

I suppose my issue with Amphib is that, again, the vessel will spend 80% of its time somewhere 200 miles off shore in the NA performing its primary function. An amphib is probably neither economically viable, or suited to the sea states out there.

True enough and I'm not saying it's something that would bring value to the fleet. Just that I'm surprised nations with more established amphib operations haven't looked at it, they seem to be good value.