3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

sparky42

randy hickey wrote: »

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

Think the yard will float her out around the 9th of March currently.

mikeym

A Nine Ship Navy???

http://www.irishexaminer.com/election2016/election2016-news-and-analysis/simon-coveney-naval-fleet-to-be-expanded-if-fine-gael-re-elected-381735.html

Fine Gael is pledging to expand the Irish naval fleet from eight ships to nine if re-elected to office, the Irish Examiner can reveal.
The promise is contained in the party’s manifesto, which will be launched in Dublin tomorrow. Defence Minister Simon Coveney has confirmed the detail of the report, seen by this newspaper, which would represent a major boost for Cork.

The manifesto commits to delivering the extra ship within the timeframe of the most recent Defence White Paper which is 10 years, but, Mr Coveney said he expects it to be delivered much sooner than that, most likely in the lifetime of the new government.

The need for the increase in the fleet size is driven by the success of the Irish Navy’s work in the Mediterranean since last year in the rescuing and transportation of refugees.

According to the manifesto, the Government will move “from an eight to a nine-ship flotilla” at an estimated cost of €90m.

sparky42

mikeym wrote: »

A Nine Ship Navy???

http://www.irishexaminer.com/election2016/election2016-news-and-analysis/simon-coveney-naval-fleet-to-be-expanded-if-fine-gael-re-elected-381735.html

Yeah we had a bit of discussion about it in the General Election thread, I did wonder was the change from the WP being driven by the deployment, looks like I was right, in which case another good fall out from it.

Now I wonder about the figure? IS the 90 million quoted for the increases of personnel in the Navy to sustain a move to a 9 ship force, or are we talking about spending 90 million on a new hull? Given that the EPV/MRV was meant to be budgeted at around 120 million, and the P60's came in at something like 55 million including the 76mm it seems to be sitting in the middle, too much even for inflation for a follow on 60, but too little for a larger OPV?

Heraldoffreeent

mikeym wrote: »

A Nine Ship Navy???

http://www.irishexaminer.com/election2016/election2016-news-and-analysis/simon-coveney-naval-fleet-to-be-expanded-if-fine-gael-re-elected-381735.html

An estimated cost of €90m?

If its 90m for an Eithne replacement, then I can't see it being much of an MRV, and none too Frigaty either.

If Eithne's replacement is an MRV/Frigate sized vessel, and this ninth ship is Budgeted at €90m, then I wonder what extra capabilities it will have over and above the Beckett OPV's?

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

An estimated cost of €90m?

If its 90m for an Eithne replacement, then I can't see it being much of an MRV, and none too Frigaty either.

If Eithne's replacement is an MRV/Frigate sized vessel, and this ninth ship is Budgeted at €90m, then I wonder what extra capabilities it will have over and above the Beckett OPV's?

No the Eithne's replacement is already in the WP and rough figure is 120 million though who knows if that holds true.

Looking at the article I think it might be 90 million for both a new hull (a 9th ship) and the cost of personnel increase for the general budget of the Navy. Think an inflation/currency adjusted P60 would fit into that bracket, I mean they were what 55 million with the 76mm added in from a '08 (I think) contract. It would fit in boosting the fleet with the least risky solution?

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

No the Eithne's replacement is already in the WP and rough figure is 120 million though who knows if that holds true.

Looking at the article I think it might be 90 million for both a new hull (a 9th ship) and the cost of personnel increase for the general budget of the Navy. Think an inflation/currency adjusted P60 would fit into that bracket, I mean they were what 55 million with the 76mm added in from a '08 (I think) contract. It would fit in boosting the fleet with the least risky solution?

Yeah, that makes sense, although if its a ship of the same build as SB, theres no guarantee on the price, and theres no guarantee that even the same yard will be available to build it, so it could be very much of an outlier in terms of the fleet and commonality.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Yeah, that makes sense, although if its a ship of the same build as SB, theres no guarantee on the price, and theres no guarantee that even the same yard will be available to build it, so it could be very much of an outlier in terms of the fleet and commonality.

Well we "own" the design after the mods we did, don't we? If so even if the yard isn't around (and yeah short of a very quick decision and awarding of the tender it's unlikely the yard will still be going), shouldn't we be able to go out to the rest of the European yards with a defined spec, rather than asking them to design and build something? Given the number of the Perry class that have decommissioned second hand 76mm prices shouldn't have gone up too much.

Ren2k7

I can't imagine another P60 being tendered on it's own, typically such tenders come in two's or three's. It sounds more credible that the two Peacocks would be replaced by three coastal patrol vessels and the Eithne replaced by the MRV, perhaps all as one contract.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I can't imagine another P60 being tendered on it's own, typically such tenders come in two's or three's. It sounds more credible that the two Peacocks would be replaced by three coastal patrol vessels and the Eithne replaced by the MRV, perhaps all as one contract.

Won't really fit the time scale, nor the suggestion that it lies outside what was already agree in the WP, and wouldn't fit into the Med type tasking that is tied into the rational coming from the article. The Peacock replacement doesn't seem at the moment to be anything off the shelf, neither is the MRV, so doesn't fit into the budget suggestion of €90 million. The CPV's are limited vessels even at the best of cases, so I can't see that fitting in.

As I said, if you factor in the 40-50 crew plus supports that would be needed, and say a €10-€15 million increase in the cost of a P60 due to inflation and currency it seems to fit better than your suggestion I think.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Won't really fit the time scale, nor the suggestion that it lies outside what was already agree in the WP, and wouldn't fit into the Med type tasking that is tied into the rational coming from the article. The Peacock replacement doesn't seem at the moment to be anything off the shelf, neither is the MRV, so doesn't fit into the budget suggestion of €90 million. The CPV's are limited vessels even at the best of cases, so I can't see that fitting in.

As I said, if you factor in the 40-50 crew plus supports that would be needed, and say a €10-€15 million increase in the cost of a P60 due to inflation and currency it seems to fit better than your suggestion I think.

Speculation on my part but I'd guessing the "€90 million" figure is the annual extra cost of maintaining a 9-ship flotilla as opposed to the cost of a new vessel.

TBH this promise by FG of an extra vessel, while undoubtedly necessary sounds like something that was included as a last minute afterthought. There's nothing in their manifesto explaining why a ninth vessel is required.

Of course we here know that Ireland does need an expanded naval presence but even at 9 it's probably still too little. If you look at Ireland's needs you're probably looking at 11-12 vessels to patrol the large EEZ as well as Ireland's increasing role in international maritime security. The Med mission has confirmed how chronically stretched and over-extended the NS actually is.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Speculation on my part but I'd guessing the "€90 million" figure is the annual extra cost of maintaining a 9-ship flotilla as opposed to the cost of a new vessel.

TBH this promise by FG of an extra vessel, while undoubtedly necessary sounds like something that was included as a last minute afterthought. There's nothing in their manifesto explaining why a ninth vessel is required.

Of course we here know that Ireland does need an expanded naval presence but even at 9 it's probably still too little. If you look at Ireland's needs you're probably looking at 11-12 vessels to patrol the large EEZ as well as Ireland's increasing role in international maritime security. The Med mission has confirmed how chronically stretched and over-extended the NS actually is.

Reading the article, it does seem to suggest a difference between the extra fixed costs (ie personnel, spares etc) and the hull.

In terms of what's being suggested I don't know if I'd label it as an afterthought, for the simple reason as we've all accepted the general political view of the Irish public is that most don't care. I mean do you think it would get FG any votes to float that they are thinking of making Defence a full Cabinet position again? People that are interested sure, but that's a fairly small pool.

Coveny was interested in the Med Mission and has been positive about restarting it again this year, perhaps we are just seeing something that was too late to factor into the WP that they want to push (if you think about it, they did make a point of the 3 year review in the WP, if the work was done pre tender by then it would fit in with using the review while still being done within the term of office). Agreed with Ireland needing at least 12, and if out of EEZ operations are going to be standard then it's even more important.

It just seems strange that FG have made it a manifesto issue, but if we are talking about a fleet increase then I don't see why anyone who supports the Defence Forces should be negative about it.

salmocab

Im a bit of a lurker here and just wondering could someone explain what is meant by OPV MRV etc and what different tasks the various types of ships perform.

sparky42

salmocab wrote: »

Im a bit of a lurker here and just wondering could someone explain what is meant by OPV MRV etc and what different tasks the various types of ships perform.

OPV is Ocean Patrol Vessel, basically a light constabulary type ship, with just enough capability to enforce it's nations position (ie our ships, or the RN's River class). Not a "war fighting" type vessel like a Corvette/Frigate etc.

MRV, is the current name for the Multi Role Vessel, which was called an EPV (Enhanced Patrol Vessel) back in the earlier '00's. It's meant to be something larger than the current OPV's (coming in about 4000ish tonnes), with both the capability to do EEZ operations while also being able do more, like troop/equipment transfer for UN/EUBG operations.

Morpheus

Thought OPV meant Offshore patrol vessel? - apologies if im not correct!

CPV coastal patrol vessel

EPV Extended patrol vessel

MRV Multi role vessel

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

Thought OPV meant Offshore patrol vessel? - apologies if im not correct!

CPV coastal patrol vessel

EPV Extended patrol vessel

MRV Multi role vessel

Thought it could be either to be honest, given the size of them nowadays.

Yawlboy

There are many definitions though Offshore Patrol Vessel is generally accepted as the standard for OPV - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_boat


Ireland uses:

CPV - Coastal Patrol Vessel i.e. the Peacocks
OPV - Offshore Patrol Vessels LE Aisling and the P50's and P60's
HPV - Helicopter Patrol Vessel - LE Eithne - even though it hasn't had a heli in decades.

Heraldoffreeent

Yawlboy wrote: »

There are many definitions though Offshore Patrol Vessel is generally accepted as the standard for OPV - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_boat


Ireland uses:

CPV - Coastal Patrol Vessel i.e. the Peacocks
OPV - Offshore Patrol Vessels LE Aisling and the P50's and P60's
HPV - Helicopter Patrol Vessel - LE Eithne - even though it hasn't had a heli in decades.

And initially when they were first introduced, the P50's were referred to as LPV's, Long range Patrol Vessels.

Ren2k7

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

And initially when they were first introduced, the P50's were referred to as LPV's, Long range Patrol Vessels.

The NS refers to the Róisín-class as Large Patrol Vessels, despite being smaller than the Becketts. The Róisíns are really just OPV's though.

http://www.military.ie/naval-service/fleet/large-patrol-vessel/

salmocab

thanks all

mikeym

If the Aisling doesnt get decommissioned and Yeates gets commissioned we have a 9 ship navy

Cheapest option.

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Reading the article, it does seem to suggest a difference between the extra fixed costs (ie personnel, spares etc) and the hull.

In terms of what's being suggested I don't know if I'd label it as an afterthought, for the simple reason as we've all accepted the general political view of the Irish public is that most don't care. I mean do you think it would get FG any votes to float that they are thinking of making Defence a full Cabinet position again? People that are interested sure, but that's a fairly small pool.

Coveny was interested in the Med Mission and has been positive about restarting it again this year, perhaps we are just seeing something that was too late to factor into the WP that they want to push (if you think about it, they did make a point of the 3 year review in the WP, if the work was done pre tender by then it would fit in with using the review while still being done within the term of office). Agreed with Ireland needing at least 12, and if out of EEZ operations are going to be standard then it's even more important.

It just seems strange that FG have made it a manifesto issue, but if we are talking about a fleet increase then I don't see why anyone who supports the Defence Forces should be negative about it.

Are you saying Simon Coveney agreed with the need for a 12 ship flotilla or that you do??

I had seem allusions in some of the Ministers stations documents to an increase in the size of the Naval Service. However, this is the first time a number was put on it. Disappointing as one extra vessel is, I think we all agree every little helps.

IMO, the 12 ship figure has been floating around in the ether for a number of years and is now outdated. I believe it originated back in the early 1990s when the Defense Reorg was underway and a first White Paper was being discussed. The NS actually made a submission recommending a 24 vessel flotilla was necessary to adequately patrol an EEZ our size. After negotiations this was whittled down to a compromise 12 ship fleet. Some moves were actually made towards attaining this. The late Hugh Coveney had planned to procure 3 OPVs to bring the fleet to 10 vessels (Deirdre wasn't due to be replaced until 2002) . However as we know he didn't last terribly long as MoD. The 3 vessels became 1=1 option and the option replaced Deirdre as she was taken out of commission early.

Its worth noting that since the EEZ has increased from 200 to 350NM, a 12 ship flotilla should no longer be a minimum. A 16-18 ship fleet would be more appropriate. Remember when we increased from 12NM to 200NM the fleet increased from 3 TO 7 vessels (8 was supposedly the target). So a pro-rata increase should be applicable now. Of course, in the late 1970s the EEC was funding the construction of new vessels.

I would be tempted to say that the more the NS look for the more they will get. However, as we know in the past that hasn't been the case. Back in the early 1960s they made a submission on Maritime Defense outlining a fleet composed of 8 Blackwood Class Frigates, 12 Ford Class Seaward Defense boats and 4 Minesweepers......and the Corvettes soldiered on until there were none left. Likewise, prior to WWII the Government were advised to buy something like 24 Torpedo boats, 20 armed trawlers and 6 large patrol boats....they bought 6 Torpedo boats and requisitioned a handful of aging trawlers.

Boreas

TripleC wrote: »

A 16-18 ship fleet would be more appropriate. Remember when we increased from 12NM to 200NM the fleet increased from 3 TO 7 vessels (8 was supposedly the target). So a pro-rata increase should be applicable now.

Do you mean a fleet of 16-18 OPV type ships or a more mixed fleet including a wider range of ships?

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

Are you saying Simon Coveney agreed with the need for a 12 ship flotilla or that you do??

Me saying it, Coveney has only floated an extra 1.

Its worth noting that since the EEZ has increased from 200 to 350NM, a 12 ship flotilla should no longer be a minimum. A 16-18 ship fleet would be more appropriate. Remember when we increased from 12NM to 200NM the fleet increased from 3 TO 7 vessels (8 was supposedly the target). So a pro-rata increase should be applicable now. Of course, in the late 1970s the EEC was funding the construction of new vessels.

In terms of hull numbers, what was our level of MPA capability even into the 90's before the CASA's? In my mind 12-16 with additional MPA capability (say 3-6) would be enough.

I would be tempted to say that the more the NS look for the more they will get. However, as we know in the past that hasn't been the case. Back in the early 1960s they made a submission on Maritime Defense outlining a fleet composed of 8 Blackwood Class Frigates, 12 Ford Class Seaward Defense boats and 4 Minesweepers......and the Corvettes soldiered on until there were none left. Likewise, prior to WWII the Government were advised to buy something like 24 Torpedo boats, 20 armed trawlers and 6 large patrol boats....they bought 6 Torpedo boats and requisitioned a handful of aging trawlers.

Pretty much all of those suggestions have been crazy, back in the 20's the suggestion was for a Light Cruiser and possible a Sub, while the British were offering around 18 Minesweepers. The only time I remember seeing anything about a Blackwood class was a Daíl question asking the Minister of the Day to rule it out, certainly never saw a submission for such numbers, and not sure what the Ford class would do.

TripleC

Boreas wrote: »

Do you mean a fleet of 16-18 OPV type ships or a more mixed fleet including a wider range of ships?

I think personally a mixed fleet would be more useful. Having said that OPV type vessels would obviously form the bulk of such a fleet as that is the NS bread and butter.

Even on the MRV/EPV I would favour something like Absalon which could conduct OPV duties when not in a transport role, in contrast to something like Canterbury or an LPD, which are one trick ponies.

C

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Me saying it, Coveney has only floated an extra 1.


In terms of hull numbers, what was our level of MPA capability even into the 90's before the CASA's? In my mind 12-16 with additional MPA capability (say 3-6) would be enough.

I would be tempted to say that the more the NS look for the more they will get. However, as we know in the past that hasn't been the case. Back in the early 1960s they made a submission on Maritime Defense outlining a fleet composed of 8 Blackwood Class Frigates, 12 Ford Class Seaward Defense boats and 4 Minesweepers......and the Corvettes soldiered on until there were none left. Likewise, prior to WWII the Government were advised to buy something like 24 Torpedo boats, 20 armed trawlers and 6 large patrol boats....they bought 6 Torpedo boats and requisitioned a handful of aging trawlers.

Pretty much all of those suggestions have been crazy, back in the 20's the suggestion was for a Light Cruiser and possible a Sub, while the British were offering around 18 Minesweepers. The only time I remember seeing anything about a Blackwood class was a Daíl question asking the Minister of the Day to rule it out, certainly never saw a submission for such numbers, and not sure what the Ford class would do.[/QUOTE]

Hey Sparky

Yes indeed the Casas have had a huge impact. To think we were offered the C235 demonstrator for a couple of million. Even if we had had only gotten 10 years out of it surely it would have been worth it. Looking at replacements the new C295W has a very impressive performance. I agree we need at least 3, arguably 5-6 would be better as with servicing/maintenance you would be guaranteed to always have 3 available/on standby.

I think Ford Class would have been basically for Coastal Patrol/Training. This type of vessel was constantly on the agenda throughout the 50s. In 54/55 General MacEoin actually order 2 Seward Defence Boats along with a Stores/Training vessel, I am not sure what happened though. I am nearly sure the Blackwoods were mentioned in a report/submission circa 60/61. I didn't know they were mentioned in the Dail though. Famously later in the 60s the NS almost bought Nkrumahs frigate Black Star (later HMS Mermaid) t again nothing happened.

On independence we inherited a varying fleet of Coastal Naval vessels, Helca being the obvious one but also some armed trawlers and coastal gunboats. These were sold off fairly quickly after the cessation of the Civil War. In Treaty negotiations the RN, who had deliberately not gotten involved in the War of Independence, was fairly amenable to Ireland having a limited Navy of Minesweepers and Submarine Chasers.

I too have seen references to us looking at Submarines in the late 1920s and several times throughout the 1930s. Which is surprising because I thought the Anglo Irish Treaty specifically precluded it.

I have never heard about the plans for a Cruiser can you elaborate?? I would love to know the details.

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

Hey Sparky

Yes indeed the Casas have had a huge impact. To think we were offered the C235 demonstrator for a couple of million. Even if we had had only gotten 10 years out of it surely it would have been worth it. Looking at replacements the new C295W has a very impressive performance. I agree we need at least 3, arguably 5-6 would be better as with servicing/maintenance you would be guaranteed to always have 3 available/on standby.

Agree with you numbers for the CASA's and why we didn't ppick up the demonstrator. Certainly the 295's look good and hopefully that's what we go for when the 235's, if we did have that number we could even provide some level of support for international operations like the Med or the Anti-Piracy operations in Somalia.

I think Ford Class would have been basically for Coastal Patrol/Training. This type of vessel was constantly on the agenda throughout the 50s. In 54/55 General MacEoin actually order 2 Seward Defence Boats along with a Stores/Training vessel, I am not sure what happened though. I am nearly sure the Blackwoods were mentioned in a report/submission circa 60/61. I didn't know they were mentioned in the Dail though. Famously later in the 60s the NS almost bought Nkrumahs frigate Black Star (later HMS Mermaid) t again nothing happened.

Given the terrible state of the economy and the low systemic investment in the Defence Forces at the time sadly I can see how such "plans" would have got lost. I mean for the Blackwoods the Navy service personnel would have had to been massively enlarged, though I suppose if we'd actually gotten the 6 Corvettes instead of just 3 such an enlargement would have been more viable.

On independence we inherited a varying fleet of Coastal Naval vessels, Helca being the obvious one but also some armed trawlers and coastal gunboats. These were sold off fairly quickly after the cessation of the Civil War. In Treaty negotiations the RN, who had deliberately not gotten involved in the War of Independence, was fairly amenable to Ireland having a limited Navy of Minesweepers and Submarine Chasers.

I too have seen references to us looking at Submarines in the late 1920s and several times throughout the 1930s. Which is surprising because I thought the Anglo Irish Treaty specifically precluded it.

I have never heard about the plans for a Cruiser can you elaborate?? I would love to know the details.

I would have to dig out the book I read it in (think it was a book on the history of Haulbowline), think it was in the mid to late 1920's Anglo-Irish naval conference, but the Treaty Ports dominated the talks. As I said the RN suggested about 2 squadrons of Minesweepers with only some being in service as they felt the Irish Navy couldn't field enough experienced personnel for much more at the time.

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Agree with you numbers for the CASA's and why we didn't ppick up the demonstrator. Certainly the 295's look good and hopefully that's what we go for when the 235's, if we did have that number we could even provide some level of support for international operations like the Med or the Anti-Piracy operations in Somalia.



Given the terrible state of the economy and the low systemic investment in the Defence Forces at the time sadly I can see how such "plans" would have got lost. I mean for the Blackwoods the Navy service personnel would have had to been massively enlarged, though I suppose if we'd actually gotten the 6 Corvettes instead of just 3 such an enlargement would have been more viable.


I would have to dig out the book I read it in (think it was a book on the history of Haulbowline), think it was in the mid to late 1920's Anglo-Irish naval conference, but the Treaty Ports dominated the talks. As I said the RN suggested about 2 squadrons of Minesweepers with only some being in service as they felt the Irish Navy couldn't field enough experienced personnel for much more at the time.

Thanks for that buddy. I thought you might know the answer off the top of your head. Please don't go rooting around to find the answer:)

The Flower Class acquisition kind of sums up the NS. They ask for 6 at a time when Britain is practically giving them away for scrap value and the Government only buys 3!! And all of the unmodified design!!

Markcheese

TripleC wrote:

Even on the MRV/EPV I would favour something like Absalon which could conduct OPV duties when not in a transport role, in contrast to something like Canterbury or an LPD, which are one trick ponies.

Would one (or a couple) of oil rig service vessels fill that role, up to about 100 meters in lenght, designed to carry cargo,(and unload it) ,function as an emergency tug and rescue vessel, designed to travel and work in the worst of conditions..
And theres stacks of them sitting idle at the moment ,
And if the aft is configured for containers it could be all modular -lift in/ lift out to suit requirments..

a/tel

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The NS refers to the Róisín-class as Large Patrol Vessels, despite being smaller than the Becketts. The Róisíns are really just OPV's though.

http://www.military.ie/naval-service/fleet/large-patrol-vessel/

The LPVs are now known in the NS as OPVs along with P23 and the P60s.

The current FOCNS initiated this when he took the helm

The DF Website is run by the Army.... hence the NS side is rarely updated!.

TripleC

Markcheese wrote: »

Would one (or a couple) of oil rig service vessels fill that role, up to about 100 meters in lenght, designed to carry cargo,(and unload it) ,function as an emergency tug and rescue vessel, designed to travel and work in the worst of conditions..
And theres stacks of them sitting idle at the moment ,
And if the aft is configured for containers it could be all modular -lift in/ lift out to suit requirments..

Actually, that idea pops up from time to time. Personally I am not a fan. Firstly an OSV would not be at all good for 3 week patrols that the EPV/MRV would be required to do when not fulfilling the transport/transfer role. Secondly, at best you could mount a pair of 20mms, a 76mm Oto would be impossible. It would also lack the required speed, I would regard the 23 knots of the Beckett Class as a minimum.

In addition, all of the cargo would have to be stored on deck exposed to the elements, and, it would not be able to embark any troops.

The only thing an OSV might be good for is perhaps to act in a support role for training, diving support etc. However, even these roles could be performed by an Emergency Towing Vessel, which obviously has added versatility. Moreover, if you look at recent Norwegian ETVs or the most recent purchase by the Icelandic Coastguard, you see vessels with excellent bollard pull yet fast enough to perform as an OPV in addition.

My two cents.