3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

BoJack Horseman

Boreas wrote: »

Another ship that's probably outside of the NS budget https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/could-this-be-britains-future-light-frigate/

No matter who bids, it will go to BAE.... the cost will baloon to £800m per unit.... the order will be scaled back to 4 with the PM proudly announcing a plan for more cost effective skiffs instead....

the circle of life for UK defence procurement.

sparky42

Boreas wrote: »

Another ship that's probably outside of the NS budget https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/could-this-be-britains-future-light-frigate/

Yeah, considering it's going to be what mid 2020's before this even get's designed, and closer to 2030 before steel gets cut, so I'd say it would be well into the next WP before it sees the light of day. And as mentioned if it ends up in BAE's hands most likely that will end up with 500 million plus mark.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No matter who bids, it will go to BAE.... the cost will baloon to £800m per unit.... the order will be scaled back to 4 with the PM proudly announcing a plan for more cost effective skiffs instead....

the circle of life for UK defence procurement.

You forgot the "enhanced technologies" allowing for 1 ship to do the job of 2 plus...

Heraldoffreeent

Boreas wrote: »

Another ship that's probably outside of the NS budget https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/could-this-be-britains-future-light-frigate/

Nice looking ship though, seems to be similar to the P50's/P60's outwardly at any rate.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Nice looking ship though, seems to be similar to the P50's/P60's outwardly at any rate.

I think she's going to be 5000 tons, though it's still kind of blank slate right now just to fill the gap in the Frigate numbers with the 26's being cut to 8.

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

I think she's going to be 5000 tons, though it's still kind of blank slate right now just to fill the gap in the Frigate numbers with the 26's being cut to 8.

Its very much a blank slate, It's really just a proposal from Venator, tonnage seems to vary between 3,200 and 5,000 depending on what you read.

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6102250/BMT%20Warships%20Venator%20110%20General%20Purpose%20Light%20Frigate%20Technical%20Brief.pdf

My point was though, that its outer design looks similar to the OPV's with the exception of outer walkways.

Markcheese

Heraldoffreeent wrote:

Nice looking ship though, seems to be similar to the P50's/P60's outwardly at any rate.

Based on the same design as a p60 ... doubt it'll be 50 million odd though ...

Larbre34

^ No chance, not at 117m with helo facilities, and VLS missiles a proper radar, not to mentioned accommodation for ~90. Be lucky to come in under Stg£100m

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

^ No chance, not at 117m with helo facilities, and VLS missiles a proper radar, not to mentioned accommodation for ~90. Be lucky to come in under Stg£100m

I'd be stunned if it was under £250m, presuming it's going to be fitted with a 127mm mount as well rather than the 4.5" or smaller.

Larbre34

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd be stunned if it was under £250m, presuming it's going to be fitted with a 127mm mount as well rather than the 4.5" or smaller.

Maybe, including the design overheads, but if a modular version has a big customer take-up it shouldnt be quite that bad. The Type 26 is trying to get down to £300m per unit although I accept thats very wishful at this point in development.

In any case, too rich for the INS, more likely we end up with the armed car ferry, hopefully without the rubbish dynamics of HMNZS Canterbury and the likes.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Maybe, including the design overheads, but if a modular version has a big customer take-up it shouldnt be quite that bad. The Type 26 is trying to get down to £300m per unit although I accept thats very wishful at this point in development.

In any case, too rich for the INS, more likely we end up with the armed car ferry, hopefully without the rubbish dynamics of HMNZS Canterbury and the likes.

Even with the pull through from Type 23's that they are using to get some of the big tickets like CAMM into service there's no way that they will get to £300 million, if they could have gotten it to that level there would be the full 13 ordered already and in production. I'd bet £500-£750 million at least, that's why they keep pushing it back and throwing OPV's into production instead. The "export" hope has also dissapeared at this stage, though this new "light Frigate" is going to try for that again (which I don't really see happening either, it's been a long time since an RN design got export orders during the building).

Given that we want an North Atlantic Patrol Ship with transport capability, I'd guess/hope we go for something different than an armed Car Ferry route.

Markcheese

Larbre34 wrote:

In any case, too rich for the INS, more likely we end up with the armed car ferry, hopefully without the rubbish dynamics of HMNZS Canterbury and the likes.

Wouldnt a tooled up car ferry be way oversized for the irish defence forces anyway - tub or no ? Wouldnt fancy patroling in that...
To be fair one of the reasons the kiwis went for that design was for disaster relief - nz and south pacific- not much point showing up in state of the art kit to help and not being able to dock and off load ...

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

Wouldnt a tooled up car ferry be way oversized for the irish defence forces anyway - tub or no ? Wouldnt fancy patroling in that...
To be fair one of the reasons the kiwis went for that design was for disaster relief - nz and south pacific- not much point showing up in state of the art kit to help and not being able to dock and off load ...

Well when we deploy for UN operations we kind of need that, for UNFIL I think they used one of the Car Deliveries Ship to take all the vehicles out for the mission, but yeah I doubt we'd end up with something that the Kiwis went for. But I suppose it just depends on what exactly they spec, though something should be floating inthe next couple of years for Eithne's end of life...

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No matter who bids, it will go to BAE.... the cost will baloon to £800m per unit.... the order will be scaled back to 4 with the PM proudly announcing a plan for more cost effective skiffs instead....

the circle of life for UK defence procurement.

No British govt can be seen giving jobs to those dirty Continentals at the expense of good hard working Britishers. Even if the furriner option is cheaper and technically better than whatever BAE can float out of its naval yards. :rolleyes:

JJames2

Ren2k7 wrote: »

No British govt can be seen giving jobs to those dirty Continentals at the expense of good hard working Britishers. Even if the furriner option is cheaper and technically better than whatever BAE can float out of its naval yards. :rolleyes:

Warship design and construction is rightly a sovereign capability. Although it must be said, BAE has put to sea better ships than its European counterparts; Daring v Horizon; Astute vs those Frenchie SSNs; QE-class v de Gaulle. But those are capabilities the RN and MoD pushed for.

The Absalon and De Zeven Provincien designs are mighty enviable.

Ren2k7

JJames2 wrote: »

Warship design and construction is rightly a sovereign capability. Although it must be said, BAE has put to sea better ships than its European counterparts; Daring v Horizon; Astute vs those Frenchie SSNs; QE-class v de Gaulle. But those are capabilities the RN and MoD pushed for.

The Absalon and De Zeven Provincien designs are mighty enviable.

That's a very 19th century attitude to be taking. Britain cannot continue shutting itself off from the outside world with such a mindset. Even the American's are (slowly) coming around the idea that foreign defence acquisitions aren't entirely a bad thing. But hey, whatever, you lot can waste your money in whatever manner you like, I have no love of the UK and desire the day when that entity has broken up and Ireland is free of their military forces. Britain isn't the world power it once was.

sparky42

JJames2 wrote: »

Warship design and construction is rightly a sovereign capability. Although it must be said, BAE has put to sea better ships than its European counterparts; Daring v Horizon; Astute vs those Frenchie SSNs; QE-class v de Gaulle. But those are capabilities the RN and MoD pushed for.

The Absalon and De Zeven Provincien designs are mighty enviable.

That's not really a fair comparison though JJ, of that list only the Daring/Horizon is of the same generation. The French SSN in comparison to the Astute is still only being designed/built at the moment (and the UK needed US "help" to get the Astutes (and the first of class has had problems)). The QE v DeG again you are talking 30 odd years between them by the time QE commissions. If the French had gone ahead with the second carrier then it would be the one to compare with the QE.

JJames2

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's a very 19th century attitude to be taking. Britain cannot continue shutting itself off from the outside world with such a mindset. Even the American's are (slowly) coming around the idea that foreign defence acquisitions aren't entirely a bad thing. But hey, whatever, you lot can waste your money in whatever manner you like, I have no love of the UK and desire the day when that entity has broken up and Ireland is free of their military forces. Britain isn't the world power it once was.

The United Kingdom does anything but shut itself off from the world, there isn't even the slightest notion we should or even could. However, when it comes to warship construction, HMG has merely seen fit to ensure the UK maintains a sovereign capability to design and build complex warships, as do other major nations. But look at what that sovereign capability entails; our premier AAW destroyer uses the joint Italian/French/UK PAAMS system and is fitted with French missiles. T45 also includes a UK version of the Dutch SMART-L radar. That looks like cooperation to me, and not a 19th century exercise in "splendid isolation".

As for BAE, they would like nothing more than to pack up and go elsewhere. The MoD/HMG are an awful bunch to do business with, between continual changing of requirements and the slashing of orders (or planned orders), BAE probably never knows which project will be its last. Hardly surprising then, they seek to make as much profit as they can, while they can. Do remember, it was BAE who wanted to consolidate two of its yards to create a brand new modern "frigate factory" for T26 construction. BAE said the consolidation and new equipment would reduce construction costs noticeably. They needed an additional investment of £100m from HMG, but the treasury point blank refused.

Then we have the Royal Navy, who by capability creep have turned a would be modest 5,500 tonne T26 frigate into an 8,000+ tonne cruiser. BAE cannot be held responsible for T26 cost escalation when it is the RN who keeps adding more and more to the design... this typical RN behaviour directly leads to cost increases and delays.

JJames2

sparky42 wrote: »

That's not really a fair comparison though JJ, of that list only the Daring/Horizon is of the same generation. The French SSN in comparison to the Astute is still only being designed/built at the moment (and the UK needed US "help" to get the Astutes (and the first of class has had problems)). The QE v DeG again you are talking 30 odd years between them by the time QE commissions. If the French had gone ahead with the second carrier then it would be the one to compare with the QE.

I suppose you are quite correct there, although I am doubtful the Barracuda will compare favourably with Astute. While Astute will never need refuelling in her 25 year service life, Barracuda will need an intolerably lengthy refuelling period every 10 years... even less if they are worked hard. As I am sure you are aware, this will mean significant downtime and considerably lower availability rates for 6 x Barracuda vs 7 x Astute.

Barracuda is also slower (>25 kn v >30 kn), smaller (5,100 t vs 7,400 t) and has around half the weapons capacity (20 vs 38) including only 4 torpedo tubes vs 6.

Ironically the French have taken the very same approach Ren was mistaking criticising the UK for. The UK unlike France was quite happy to work with the USA and tap into their huge expertise to develop Astute. I don't think this is anything to be ashamed off, cooperation and collective defence is the order of the day after all.

However to be fair, I am not sure France has an agreement with the USA on the sharing and development of nuclear submarine technology. So it probably isn't an option for them in the first place.

sparky42

JJames2 wrote: »

I suppose you are quite correct there, although I am doubtful the Barracuda will compare favourably with Astute. While Astute will never need refuelling in her 25 year service life, Barracuda will need an intolerably lengthy refuelling period every 10 years... even less if they are worked hard. As I am sure you are aware, this will mean significant downtime and considerably lower availability rates for 6 x Barracuda vs 7 x Astute.

Barracuda is also slower (>25 kn v >30 kn), smaller (5,100 t vs 7,400 t) and has around half the weapons capacity (20 vs 38) including only 4 torpedo tubes vs 6.

Ironically the French have taken the very same approach Ren was mistaking criticising the UK for. The UK unlike France was quite happy to work with the USA and tap into their huge expertise to develop Astute. I don't think this is anything to be ashamed off, cooperation and collective defence is the order of the day after all.

However to be fair, I am not sure France has an agreement with the USA on the sharing and development of nuclear submarine technology. So it probably isn't an option for them in the first place.

In terms of the design of the Barracuda, I think it fits more into the French naval plans (for example I think they used reactors designed off commercial designs so perhaps will have a lower cost per unit than that of the RN's designs.

Also consider that the French are actually still in the position for trying to market their designs for export (which even without the Upholders terrible program the UK hasn't been able to do), from memory the Brazilians were interested in getting something based off the Barracuda for their planned SSN (though that's been kicked with the downturn in their economy), and now the French are putting forward a "Conventional" Barracuda for the RAN's new SSK.

randy hickey

Any updates on the build progress of LÉ William Butler Yeats?

donvito99

I also see that Minister Coveney intends to order another mission to the Med. Any word on how it all went? Performance of the Sam versus the Roisin class?

sparky42

donvito99 wrote: »

I also see that Minister Coveney intends to order another mission to the Med. Any word on how it all went? Performance of the Sam versus the Roisin class?

Actually it's the Navy is planning to be ready to do it if whoever gets elected says so, right now nothing is planned till after the election.

donvito99

sparky42 wrote: »

Actually it's the Navy is planning to be ready to do it if whoever gets elected says so, right now nothing is planned till after the election.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/another-irish-naval-vessel-should-go-to-mediterranean-says-coveney-1.2511575

Fair enough, after the GE he'll think about it. 8,600 is an incredible figure, unprecedented really for the NS.

sparky42

donvito99 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/another-irish-naval-vessel-should-go-to-mediterranean-says-coveney-1.2511575

Fair enough, after the GE he'll think about it. 8,600 is an incredible figure, unprecedented really for the NS.

Well the entire mission was unprecedented for the NS, everything was a first for them. apart from the life saving operations I hope it's created a lot of increase in operations knowledge and working with other naval services, and at best maybe feed into the thinking around the spec for the EPV when it comes time.

roundymac

P63 due to be floated out on the 9th March depending on weather and tides.

BoJack Horseman

Will there be more Beckett Class ships?

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Will there be more Beckett Class ships?

Doubt it, the White paper only plans a Eithne replacement and the Peacock replacements, the Beckett design doesn't lend itself to either one of those. Short of the fleet being enlarged the 3 is all we'll see. To be honest given Eithne's age profile I'd prefer movement soon on the EPV design/tender since all we have to go on is massively outdated.

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

Doubt it, the White paper only plans a Eithne replacement and the Peacock replacements, the Beckett design doesn't lend itself to either one of those. Short of the fleet being enlarged the 3 is all we'll see. To be honest given Eithne's age profile I'd prefer movement soon on the EPV design/tender since all we have to go on is massively outdated.

Why not?

The Eithne is about the same size as a Beckett?
Aside from the redundant heli-pad, why would a Beckett not be an apt replacement?

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Why not?

The Eithne is about the same size as a Beckett?
Aside from the redundant heli-pad, why would a Beckett not be an apt replacement?

Because the EPV/MRV/whatever it ends up being called, is meant to be at least 4000 tonnes, with helicopter capability and ideally the capability to move at least some cargo/troopd for EUBG/UN operations. The Becketts from memory are already the largest of that design, doubling their displacement and fitting in the other requirements may not be feasible.

Now the original design requirement may change if/when the Eithne replacement goes ahead, but by then I'd bet you are talking of at least 2-3 years of a gap between P63 and any order.