3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

TripleC

So, here is the situation as things stand. The future fleet will be composed of 9 vessels. The Roisin Class and Beckett Class remain in service, Eithne, Ciara and Orla are thus being replaced by 4 new vessels.

The Minister has already stated that Ciara and Orla will be replaced on a like-for-like basis by 2 CPC (which should be large enough to carry modular msm equipment).

So, what do we think the future fleet composition will be. I have been mulling this over and I make the permutations as being as follows:

2x CPC, 2x EPV/MRV

2x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV, 1x ETV

2x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV, 1x additional Beckett

2x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV, 1x Eithne remaining in service after current refit

3x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV

2x CPC, 2x OPV (stretched Beckett)

What do you guys think?

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

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.

You already mentioned two of the things I was thinking of, with any hardware/cargo being exposed (and given the increasing tech in even our MOWAGs salt could be an issue and the low speed. There's also the size of the lift we are talking about, I have some photo's somewhere of when UNFIL was redeployed and it used one of the Grimaldi car transporters from memory.

I think I saw something a while from ThinkDefence (UK defence blog) about the possibility of using commercial designs for the Royal Navy, it goes without saying that we don't need anything like some of the options that they look at but still:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/a-ship-that-still-isnt-a-frigate/initial-considerations/

I think we should look at a dedicated ETV for the Navy, god knows if we ever need it, everyone is going to blame the Navy for not having it:rolleyes::mad: (maybe combine the role with a dedicated dive support capability rather than tie up an OPV when such support is needed?), but I'm not sure if the current surpluses fit the needs, certainly don't think it could take the role of what the EPV was envisaged as, though I guess we'll have to wait until some modern specs/plans for the ship get released.

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

So, here is the situation as things stand. The future fleet will be composed of 9 vessels. The Roisin Class and Beckett Class remain in service, Eithne, Ciara and Orla are thus being replaced by 4 new vessels.

The Minister has already stated that Ciara and Orla will be replaced on a like-for-like basis by 2 CPC (which should be large enough to carry modular msm equipment).

So, what do we think the future fleet composition will be. I have been mulling this over and I make the permutations as being as follows:

2x CPC, 2x EPV/MRV

2x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV, 1x ETV

2x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV, 1x additional Beckett

2x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV, 1x Eithne remaining in service after current refit

3x CPC, 1x EPV/MRV

2x CPC, 2x OPV (stretched Beckett)

What do you guys think?

Can the Beckett's be stretched anymore? I mean from memory we are already running the longest length size of that particularly design which started out in '95 for the Vigilant? I also wonder what the CPC (or whatever they end up being called) will be, don't think there's anything currently in design/operation that meets the WP demands of matching the speed and tonnage of the CPV's and then also being a minesweeper vessel? The EPV for what we seem willing to pay for is also going to be an issue, at €120 million, short of something like the NZ Canterbury (which we should avoid) I don't know what they will go for?

I did read on IMO, a comment about Eithne being in good material condition since her refit, so maybe she will be made to continue operation?

Ren2k7

The NZ Navy gives us an idea of what Ireland should be aiming for. A modest sized fleet of 11 vessels but also capable of performing the tasks required of it.

2 x Frigates
2 x OPV's
4 x Coastal Patrol Vessels
3 x support vessels

Compare this to Ireland's 8 OPV/CPV's. It would make a lot of sense to build up more support capabilities for the NS through some type of "Fleet Auxiliary".

One thing that the NS lacks are any hydrographic and seabed surveying vessels. Luckily Ireland already has such vessels operated by the Marine Institute, the RV Celtic Explorer and RV Celtic Voyager.





The Commissioners of Irish Lights also has a similar vessel, the ILV Granuaile which can operate under multiple operational requirements.



These vessels should be transferred to the NS (and the CIL transferred to the Coast Guard, lighthouses often being the responsibility of Coast Guards in many countries) which would provide them with the means to carry out seabed mapping and hydrographic surveying.

This wouldn't be transferring vessels just to inflate the numbers but rather provide the NS with additional capabilities in ensuring sea-lanes in Ireland, and overseas in conflict zones are clear and free for shipping. Right now these vessels are purely civilian in nature but it makes sense to utilise them in a more varied role for both domestic and overseas missions.

FWIW, there are other vessels like the [URL="[IMG]http://www.irishships.com/images/Photo Album/Miscellaneous/dw 22.08.11 d.JPG[/IMG]"]two Custom cutters[/URL] and [URL="[url]http://www.infomar.ie/surveying/Vessels.php[/url]"]coastal research vessels[/URL] that would be ideally placed in a beefed up Border and Coast Guard (like what the Brits did a few years back with their Customs agency being subsumed into UK Border Force) that could help take the strain off NS operations allowing them to concentrate on deep sea operations as well as Med naval missions.

So......

5 x OPV's (maybe with a sixth)
2 x new Coastal Patrol Vessels
3 x Hydrographic Support Vessels (RV Celtic Explorer, RV Celtic Voyager, ILV Granuaile)

And the long anticipated Multi-Role Support Vessel.

That would give you a fleet of 12 vessels (if FG get back in and follow though with their promise of another vessel), not bad for a small country like Ireland.

Ren2k7

a/tel wrote: »

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!.

I had assumed the DF website was run by the DoD

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

You already mentioned two of the things I was thinking of, with any hardware/cargo being exposed (and given the increasing tech in even our MOWAGs salt could be an issue and the low speed. There's also the size of the lift we are talking about, I have some photo's somewhere of when UNFIL was redeployed and it used one of the Grimaldi car transporters from memory.

I think I saw something a while from ThinkDefence (UK defence blog) about the possibility of using commercial designs for the Royal Navy, it goes without saying that we don't need anything like some of the options that they look at but still:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/a-ship-that-still-isnt-a-frigate/initial-considerations/

I think we should look at a dedicated ETV for the Navy, god knows if we ever need it, everyone is going to blame the Navy for not having it:rolleyes::mad: (maybe combine the role with a dedicated dive support capability rather than tie up an OPV when such support is needed?), but I'm not sure if the current surpluses fit the needs, certainly don't think it could take the role of what the EPV was envisaged as, though I guess we'll have to wait until some modern specs/plans for the ship get released.

My thinking on the EPV/MRV would be much the same. Thats why I would favor something along the lines of Absalon or even the new Damen Crossover concept. They may not have quite the required amount of lane meters for storage. However, given that there is at best 2 resupply voyages per year, its more important to get something that can function as an OPV out at the edge of our EEZ in the North Atlantic. As for costs, Absalon in unit terms was €180 million, far in excess of our €120 million budget. However, when you consider the fact that we will not be including the sophisticated sensor fit, ASW fit incl torpedos, RIM-162 SAM or Harpoon SSM, then the over costs reduce quite alot.

I agree about the ETV, the Kowloon Bridge incident should have resulted in action on this front. We have had a couple of near misses since al;though with much smaller vessels. Given the volume of trade passing our coast an ETV is essential. Furthermore, to make the design as multi-purpose as possible, diving support, training and pollution control could all be accommodated. If we go for something like the Icelandic Coastguard then it could function as an opv as well.

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Can the Beckett's be stretched anymore? I mean from memory we are already running the longest length size of that particularly design which started out in '95 for the Vigilant? I also wonder what the CPC (or whatever they end up being called) will be, don't think there's anything currently in design/operation that meets the WP demands of matching the speed and tonnage of the CPV's and then also being a minesweeper vessel? The EPV for what we seem willing to pay for is also going to be an issue, at €120 million, short of something like the NZ Canterbury (which we should avoid) I don't know what they will go for?

I did read on IMO, a comment about Eithne being in good material condition since her refit, so maybe she will be made to continue operation?

I know for certain that a PV95, ie a 95m Beckett already exists as an option from STX Shipbuilders.

With a beam of 14m, the Becketts could be stretched a fair bit still. Even going up to 100m-105m they would have a beam-length ratio of 7/7.25-1. Which is still lower then many Corvette/Frigate classes which tend to be closer to 8-1/9-1.

Some vessel families such as Sigma and Meko are actually designed to be stretched by adding hull sections. Although, granted if they weren't initially designed in this modular fashion it can be a bit more complicated.

I probably used a poor formula of words. By stretched Beckett I really meant a larger OPV, but something short of an EPV/MRV. So a 100-110m OPV with better sensor fit such as 3d ASSR. And possibly point defence system if its going to be deployed on overseas missions. Something like Holland Class or Khareef class.

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Can the Beckett's be stretched anymore? I mean from memory we are already running the longest length size of that particularly design which started out in '95 for the Vigilant? I also wonder what the CPC (or whatever they end up being called) will be, don't think there's anything currently in design/operation that meets the WP demands of matching the speed and tonnage of the CPV's and then also being a minesweeper vessel? The EPV for what we seem willing to pay for is also going to be an issue, at €120 million, short of something like the NZ Canterbury (which we should avoid) I don't know what they will go for?

I did read on IMO, a comment about Eithne being in good material condition since her refit, so maybe she will be made to continue operation?

On the CPC, there does seem to be quite a gulf in available designs. Looking at many of the Naval shipbuilders websites, Lurrsen, Damen etc Many designs seem to be 40-60m and 200-500 tonnes, examples include the NZ Navy 55m IPVs or the very successful Damen Stan series. Then the next offering is an 80m 1500 ton OPV. Unfortunately the NS requirement sits squarely in the middle: 60-70m 800-1000 tonnes.

In noticed that the lads over on IMO seem to have ferreted out a couple of designs matching the specs.

Tabnabs

Ren2k7 wrote: »

These vessels should be transferred to the NS (and the CIL transferred to the Coast Guard, lighthouses often being the responsibility of Coast Guards in many countries) which would provide them with the means to carry out seabed mapping and hydrographic surveying.

This wouldn't be transferring vessels just to inflate the numbers but rather provide the NS with additional capabilities in ensuring sea-lanes in Ireland, and overseas in conflict zones are clear and free for shipping. Right now these vessels are purely civilian in nature but it makes sense to utilise them in a more varied role for both domestic and overseas missions.

Good gods that's the worst idea I've read on this thread so far. The navy should stick to what they do best; patrolling, and leave the specialised work to highly trained and experienced seafarers.

Tabnabs

TripleC wrote: »

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.

You do know that these ships operate independently for a minimum of 1 month and many work offshore for months on end?

It would also be an interesting experiment to put a Beckett Class beside an Ulstein X bow design to see who does better in real life conditions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJsogw9fHE0

TripleC wrote: »

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.

Stick a lid on it, or better yet, a huge hanger

TripleC wrote: »

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.

Arguably the most versatile type of vessel afloat. They will do whatever you need them to do.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

This wouldn't be transferring vessels just to inflate the numbers but rather provide the NS with additional capabilities in ensuring sea-lanes in Ireland, and overseas in conflict zones are clear and free for shipping. Right now these vessels are purely civilian in nature but it makes sense to utilise them in a more varied role for both domestic and overseas missions.

FWIW, there are other vessels like the two Custom cutters and coastal research vessels that would be ideally placed in a beefed up Border and Coast Guard (like what the Brits did a few years back with their Customs agency being subsumed into UK Border Force) that could help take the strain off NS operations allowing them to concentrate on deep sea operations as well as Med naval missions.

What roles could those ships be deployed to do overseas? I mean they are designed for pretty specialised operations, are we going to be mapping seabeds in UN missions? Or setting up research buoys? They are even less capable of defending themselves than even the Navy's OPV's and frankly the highly specialised personnel that support them are unlikely to volunteer their services in UN missions (even if they were wanted?).

As to the Custom Cutters, what are their actual sea worthiness?

Tabnabs

sparky42 wrote: »

What roles could those ships be deployed to do overseas? I mean they are designed for pretty specialised operations, are we going to be mapping seabeds in UN missions? Or setting up research buoys? They are even less capable of defending themselves than even the Navy's OPV's and frankly the highly specialised personnel that support them are unlikely to volunteer their services in UN missions (even if they were wanted?).

As to the Custom Cutters, what are their actual sea worthiness?

Ships like the Granuaile are arguably more efficient and effective at refugee patrolling...


Burbon Argos


Siem Pilot

tac foley

Ren2k7 wrote: »

RV Celtic Explorer

What a great-looking large-scale model ship that would make!

tac

Markcheese

Tabnabs wrote:

It would also be an interesting experiment to put a Beckett Class beside an Ulstein X bow design to see who does better in real life conditions...

I was thinking that... a peacock is the fastest ship we have... unless its rough out there.. .. ( doubt there'd be many x-bows out there going cheap though )

Assume a covered cargo area could be configured to carry containers , be a vehicle deck , a hanger or even take troops (in converted containers again , the aussies do that) , anything that could be configured to fit in shipping containers.. would there be draught issues for haulbowline ??

Ren2k7

Tabnabs wrote: »

Good gods that's the worst idea I've read on this thread so far.

Tabnabs wrote: »

Ships like the Granuaile are arguably more efficient and effective at refugee patrolling...

Make up your mind. Either it's a good idea or not. I've already explained how many navies have dedicated hydrographic survey vessels of their own....http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet#survey so there's no reason why the NS shouldn't have a dedicated section for such a role. And yes, the vessels would be useful in a variety of roles overseas like migrant interception.

nowecant

Pic of L.E. William Butler Yeats on the INS Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/irishnavalservice/photos/a.108479675901604.17050.101764433239795/952245898191640/?type=3&theater

sparky42

nowecant wrote: »

Pic of L.E. William Butler Yeats on the INS Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/irishnavalservice/photos/a.108479675901604.17050.101764433239795/952245898191640/?type=3&theater

Must be a fairly old enough photo since she has to be further along than this by now for the sail out in a couple of weeks. Hopefully her fit out and shake down will go better than JJ.

Markcheese

Is there rumours that appledore are on the way out soon after this p60 is done ?? Or is that just a story...

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

Is there rumours that appledore are on the way out soon after this p60 is done ?? Or is that just a story...

Do they have any other orders? It is a limited yard for anything more than OPV sized ships, I mean just look at the JJ's fit out issues.

LiamoSail

Ren2k7 wrote: »

These vessels should be transferred to the NS (and the CIL transferred to the Coast Guard, lighthouses often being the responsibility of Coast Guards in many countries) which would provide them with the means to carry out seabed mapping and hydrographic surveying.
.

So you want to take a purpose built Lighthouse Tender away from the work she was designed to do in order to utilise her in a role for which she hasn't been primarily designed?

What ship will do the buoy work and lighthouse storing once the Granualie is off following your mad plan, bearing in mind the Granuaile is a purpose built ship and similar would be required to replace her?

TripleC

nowecant wrote: »

Pic of L.E. William Butler Yeats on the INS Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/irishnavalservice/photos/a.108479675901604.17050.101764433239795/952245898191640/?type=3&theater

Thanks buddy! Hopefully she moves along swiftly, SAM hit a bit of a stumbling block at this stage of build/fitout if I recall correctly.

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Do they have any other orders? It is a limited yard for anything more than OPV sized ships, I mean just look at the JJ's fit out issues.

Hey Buddy

I think you are right. This could be Bancock/Appledores last job.

Unless they have more QEII Carrier subcontract work shunted their way. That might not be out of the question as Devon votes fairly solidly for the Tories (albeit North Devon was Lib Dem until recently).

In fact I was actually wondering could the 9th ship be another Beckett Class. You will know that we recently signed bilateral Defence agreements with the UK. There were unspecified promises within it of free equipment from UK surplus stocks......I wonder would a quid pro quo involving giving some work to a shipyard in order to keep it open.

Worth think about. Eithnes replacement will be the EPV/MRV. Ciara and Orla will be replaced by similar sized vessels with MCM capability. So the 9th is an unknown quantity. And, ordering another member of the successful Beckett Class (teetching troubles aside) would be alot cheaper and more justifiable then a second EPV/MRV.

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

Thanks buddy! Hopefully she moves along swiftly, SAM hit a bit of a stumbling block at this stage of build/fitout if I recall correctly.

I think that was more to do with the fact that they floated out earlier than this and she got disrupted due to the high wind storms that we and the UK had last Winter, while she was sitting on the harbour floor.

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

Hey Buddy

I think you are right. This could be Bancock/Appledores last job.

Unless they have more QEII Carrier subcontract work shunted their way. That might not be out of the question as Devon votes fairly solidly for the Tories (albeit North Devon was Lib Dem until recently).

In fact I was actually wondering could the 9th ship be another Beckett Class. You will know that we recently signed bilateral Defence agreements with the UK. There were unspecified promises within it of free equipment from UK surplus stocks......I wonder would a quid pro quo involving giving some work to a shipyard in order to keep it open.

Worth think about. Eithnes replacement will be the EPV/MRV. Ciara and Orla will be replaced by similar sized vessels with MCM capability. So the 9th is an unknown quantity. And, ordering another member of the successful Beckett Class (teetching troubles aside) would be alot cheaper and more justifiable then a second EPV/MRV.

Yeah I think the majority of the QE/POW hull sections are done, didn't they state that the actual keel laying of WB was delayed to do some of that work? With QE done and into the fitting out stage, POW is under construction now.

In terms of the potential 9th hull being a fourth P60, given what FG proposed as the budget I think she would almost have to be that, at €90 million I can't imagine it could be a new design (or why we would need one), but the issue might be getting it through the procurement process in time for the yard to remain open, I mean even best case I'd figure at least a couple of years to go through that. There's no way the 90 million (assuming FG get elected and carry out that promise) would be enough for a second EPV, I doubt the first EPV will come in at what the WP suggested it will (or even if the proposed specs for the EPV will make sense).

roadmaster

Not knowing a huge amount about naval design, If an extra ship is to be bought and the government was able to do a really good deal with appledore which resulted in ordering another 3 becketts, could two of the new becketts be outfitted to work in the mine clearance role as well as having a primary patrolling role as the other becketts. The reason I ask is I see on IMO people have wrote that the cpv's are to small for the weather that now exists in the north Atlantic. so in effect we would get ciara and orla's replacements with a mine clearance capability but with the same capability of the other OPV'S which results in them able to patrol the seas the same as the rest of the fleet for a good price? Or is it just not viable for a beckett class to work as mine clearance vessel as well?

roundymac

Where would you go mine clearing? Not needed, no mines around here.

TripleC

roadmaster wrote: »

Not knowing a huge amount about naval design, If an extra ship is to be bought and the government was able to do a really good deal with appledore which resulted in ordering another 3 becketts, could two of the new becketts be outfitted to work in the mine clearance role as well as having a primary patrolling role as the other becketts. The reason I ask is I see on IMO people have wrote that the cpv's are to small for the weather that now exists in the north Atlantic. so in effect we would get ciara and orla's replacements with a mine clearance capability but with the same capability of the other OPV'S which results in them able to patrol the seas the same as the rest of the fleet for a good price? Or is it just not viable for a beckett class to work as mine clearance vessel as well?

....I guess they could given that the Beckets can carry 3 teu containers and alot of modular MCM equipment nowadays is modern. In its C3 requirement the RN was proposing to replace their current minesweepers and OPVs with an OPV/Corvette that could perform MCM duties. Although this idea seems to be on the wane.

The problem would be the Becketts have quite a deep draught and thus couldn't effectively reach shallow waters that the CPCs can operate in.

Likewise, I think Minister Coveney is actually on record stating that the Peacocks will be replaced by similar vessels. The MCM capability was something of a surprise appendage.

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah I think the majority of the QE/POW hull sections are done, didn't they state that the actual keel laying of WB was delayed to do some of that work? With QE done and into the fitting out stage, POW is under construction now.

In terms of the potential 9th hull being a fourth P60, given what FG proposed as the budget I think she would almost have to be that, at €90 million I can't imagine it could be a new design (or why we would need one), but the issue might be getting it through the procurement process in time for the yard to remain open, I mean even best case I'd figure at least a couple of years to go through that. There's no way the 90 million (assuming FG get elected and carry out that promise) would be enough for a second EPV, I doubt the first EPV will come in at what the WP suggested it will (or even if the proposed specs for the EPV will make sense).

Hey Buddy

I think you hit the nail on the head mentioning the €90 million.

If I recall correctly, the Peacock/Eithne replacements are effectively budgeted for. So the €90 million is the extra needed for the 9th vessel. If we take it that the basic Beckett cost approx 50 million (give of take) plus another 4-5 million for the Oto.(this could actually be even higher because initial renders of Sam showed an ASS radar being fitted) The that leaves approx 30-35 million. Could this be the annual cost of the additional 50-55 crew members salaries/maintenence etc?

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

Not knowing a huge amount about naval design, If an extra ship is to be bought and the government was able to do a really good deal with appledore which resulted in ordering another 3 becketts, could two of the new becketts be outfitted to work in the mine clearance role as well as having a primary patrolling role as the other becketts. The reason I ask is I see on IMO people have wrote that the cpv's are to small for the weather that now exists in the north Atlantic. so in effect we would get ciara and orla's replacements with a mine clearance capability but with the same capability of the other OPV'S which results in them able to patrol the seas the same as the rest of the fleet for a good price? Or is it just not viable for a beckett class to work as mine clearance vessel as well?

Honestly I think trying to fit Mine Clearance into a CPV spec (ie size, speed, UUV systems) is going to be hard anyway, the current/future planned designs don't really check all the boxes, though it might be interesting to see what the RN comes up with when they get to replacing their mine hunters in the next couple of years.

Problem with using the Beckett design is their draughtm which is a meter deeper than the Peacock's, so for in shore work they might have limits compared to the CPV's, now whether the larger Ribs or having the custom cutters do such work might be alternatives is another question.

sparky42

roundymac wrote: »

Where would you go mine clearing? Not needed, no mines around here.

So that they might be useful on international operations? IED type mines aren't much harder than some of the stuff we've seen from the Middle East over the last decade, and the amount that crippled a Burke class Destroyer was relatively small (and yes I know that was a suicide attack rather than a Mine but the point stands I think).

To me I think it's another good way of looking at how to expand the Navy into out of EEZ operations.