3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

sparky42

TripleC wrote: »

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?

Don't forget to add in currency and inflation changes since the 50 million price tag, from memory that's '08 prices when the contract was signed for the 3, so I figure at least another 10-15 million for both added in, so figure 60-65 (giving head room for other growth costs), the 76mm shouldn't have changed price given the number of second hands from the USN Perry class that have decommissioned, so say 70 million as a top figure, the rest I'd say would go on extra costs, the crew (and say a bit more than just the bare minimum), extra spares/supplies/fuel costs/dockyard expenses going forward in the current spending of the Navy.

roadmaster

roundymac wrote: »

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

i probably worded it incorrectly but according to the white paper the vessels that will replace ciara and oral will have counter mine and counter IED capabilities (Pg 68 of the white paper)

TripleC

sparky42 wrote: »

Don't forget to add in currency and inflation changes since the 50 million price tag, from memory that's '08 prices when the contract was signed for the 3, so I figure at least another 10-15 million for both added in, so figure 60-65 (giving head room for other growth costs), the 76mm shouldn't have changed price given the number of second hands from the USN Perry class that have decommissioned, so say 70 million as a top figure, the rest I'd say would go on extra costs, the crew (and say a bit more than just the bare minimum), extra spares/supplies/fuel costs/dockyard expenses going forward in the current spending of the Navy.

Hey Buddy

I think the Becketts were finally ordered in 2010. The payments were also spread until 2017 which may actually have driven up unit costs somewhat.

I knew Roisins had second hand Otos but I thought the Becketts were the newer variant, albeit we opted not to have the stealth cupola which appeared in the early line drawings and renders.

The will indeed be a load of excellent used Otos not only from the Perrys but also from German FACs which mount two. I have a mate in Spain who mentioned that the Spanish Navy sold alot of them for a song once the Lazaga Class were scrapped.

And remember, most used Otos have never fired a shot in anger and as long as they were maintained are basically brand new.

Markcheese

I didnt even know ciara and orla are mine clearers.... I thought the were coastal patrol vessels
Do we need that capability ... modern mine clearance can be pretty hi-tech , plastic and aluminium hulls- helicopter towed sweeps - Remote operated submersibles ect ...

randy hickey

I have to agree - I also fail to see the need for a N.S. minesweeping capability.

Surely, as a nation, we should be concentrating on building up a fleet that is adequate to effectively patrol our 400,000+ Km2 EEZ?


Btw I've seen the number 12 being bandied around as the magic number for an adequate fleet. Would a twelve vessel fleet really be enough to cover that sort of area properly?

Markcheese

Anyone know how m a many days a year the navy ships aim to be out on patrol for... ??

TripleC

Markcheese wrote: »

I didnt even know ciara and orla are mine clearers.... I thought the were coastal patrol vessels
Do we need that capability ... modern mine clearance can be pretty hi-tech , plastic and aluminium hulls- helicopter towed sweeps - Remote operated submersibles ect ...

Ciara and Orla do not have mine clearing capability. The inclusion of MCM duties in the CPC replacement specifications was somewhat of a surprise.

Not all MCM vessels have non-Metalic hulls. In fact quite a few don't as the method of clearing mines means they are rarely in close quarters to sea mines during clearance.

One of raison d'etre which was mentioned as to why MCM capability was included was the possibility of operating in tandem with other Navies. Read into that what you will.

Also, many Naval applications are modular and containerized which saves on purchasing task specific vessels. I guess if MCM equipment can be deployed in this fashion then it makes perfect sense to have the Equipment which can be stored at Haulbowline and deployed as needs be.

Win win.

TripleC

Markcheese wrote: »

Anyone know how m a many days a year the navy ships aim to be out on patrol for... ??

I don't have exact figures off the top of my head beut its certainly 200 days per anum minimum.

TripleC

randy hickey wrote: »

I have to agree - I also fail to see the need for a N.S. minesweeping capability.

Surely, as a nation, we should be concentrating on building up a fleet that is adequate to effectively patrol our 400,000+ Km2 EEZ?


Btw I've seen the number 12 being bandied around as the magic number for an adequate fleet. Would a twelve vessel fleet really be enough to cover that sort of area properly?

As I mentioned in my reply above, if MCM equipment is modular and containerized, why not have it. Having a deck which can store 1-2 TEU can then transform a standard Patrol Vessel into a Multi role vessel.

I kind of agree re the composition of the fleet. In fact I think there was a line of thought in the NS which wanted to replaced The Peacocks with two additional full OPVs. Having said that, if the NS gives up Coastal Patrols, that responsibility would probably fall to the Coastguard, who would then need to build and commission new vessels. Or, Customs which already has 2 Customs Cutters (which aren't terribly suited to patrols in rough weather). Either way, the NS would the be ceding responsibilities to other organisations.

The 12 ship minimum figure arose I believe in the early 90s when the first White Paper was being discussed. The NS asserted that they needed 24 vessels to adequately patrol our EEZ. After discussions a 12 vessel flotilla was agreed as an absolute minimum. Note, that was with the old 200NM EEZ. Now the EEZ is 350NM. So, in my humble opinion 15-18 vessels as unrealistic as that seems is actually the minimum necessary.

randy hickey

We all know how it is a hard sell politically to get Seán and Mary Public to accept an increase in Defence spending - they'd rather a new hospital in every parish and a Guard standing outside their front door.

The simple solution is to sell an increase in the fleet as a long overdue strategy to cut off the serious tonnage of heroin, coke etc., that is, without question, being landed covertly on our shoreline.
It is a widely accepted fact that arms and ammunition are coming in with these shipments, and ordinary decent citizens can be educated on the threat to the State that this poses.

The drugs trade here may be worth north of €1Bn - that's a lot of burglaries, car thefts, muggings, robberies and white collar fraud to pay for all that. Not to mention the cost to Ireland Inc. from increased insurance costs, healthcare costs (both junkies and victims), policing/courts service/prison service costs etc. etc. etc..

As a people, we need to grow up. We have not got a Naval Service of sufficient size to do the job that needs doing. This needs to change.

Markcheese

TripleC wrote:

I don't have exact figures off the top of my head beut its certainly 200 days per anum minimum.

If with newer ships that could be realistically be increased to for eg 300 days .. that would be the same as a 50 % bigger navy ... ( I assume that'd mean a big change in how the crews are rostered ect)

Silvera

randy hickey wrote: »

We all know how it is a hard sell politically to get Seán and Mary Public to accept an increase in Defence spending - they'd rather a new hospital in every parish and a Guard standing outside their front door.

The simple solution is to sell an increase in the fleet as a long overdue strategy to cut off the serious tonnage of heroin, coke etc., that is, without question, being landed covertly on our shoreline.
It is a widely accepted fact that arms and ammunition are coming in with these shipments, and ordinary decent citizens can be educated on the threat to the State that this poses.

The drugs trade here may be worth north of €1Bn - that's a lot of burglaries, car thefts, muggings, robberies and white collar fraud to pay for all that. Not to mention the cost to Ireland Inc. from increased insurance costs, healthcare costs (both junkies and victims), policing/courts service/prison service costs etc. etc. etc..

As a people, we need to grow up. We have not got a Naval Service of sufficient size to do the job that needs doing. This needs to change.

Very well put! Linking the crime rates versus lack of naval vessels is a good way to make 'joe public' see the need for more DF investment.

a/tel

Markcheese wrote: »

If with newer ships that could be realistically be increased to for eg 300 days .. that would be the same as a 50 % bigger navy ... ( I assume that'd mean a big change in how the crews are rostered ect)

Thats not possible with the current NS establishment of just over 1000 persons.

After taking out the shore based appointments of Senior NCOs/Senior Officers, transport fitters, ordnance personnel, etc your only talking about 600 persons. Add to that personnel long term excused sea for medical reasons and female personnel who are pre/post natal and the list shrinks further.

The machines might be able for 300 days, the personnel are not.

Markcheese

a/tel wrote:

The machines might be able for 300 days, the personnel are not.

So should that be a target rather than a fictional 12 ship fleet ? ( which would need more or less the same numbers anyway ) -

TripleC

Markcheese wrote: »

So should that be a target rather than a fictional 12 ship fleet ? ( which would need more or less the same numbers anyway ) -

Not necessarily. Having an 8/9 ship flotilla at Sea 300 plus days per anum means 2 crews per ship effectively. If you are hiring the extra crew members why not just buy additional ships too.

In addition, the North Atlantic is a particularly punishing environment. Having vessels at sea 300+ days per year will have an ongoing effect in requiring significant maintenance as well as reducing the lifespan of the hulls from 30-35 years to more likely 20-25 years.

Ren2k7

murphym7 wrote: »

Aim is to have CIL being self funding from Irish due's.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/commissioners-of-irish-lights

It's shocking that an Irish agency is partially under British control.

Yawlboy

Its an All-Ireland body - covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic. I think its a great example of cross border cooperation - like the rugby team. :rolleyes:

donvito99

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's shocking that an Irish agency is partially under British control.

Its an All-Ireland body - covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic

Kinda like the Sinn Féin....?

roundymac

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's shocking that an Irish agency is partially under British control.

What's your suggestion, pay for it ourselves! we won't even pay for water FFS.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's shocking that an Irish agency is partially under British control.

Oh pack it in, we didn't want to pay for it in 22 as we argued the English Transatlantic liners that used them were for the UK's benefit so they should pay for it. Since then like everything else the politicians and the public are ok with the UK continuing to pay for some of it (just like defence).

And since you seem to act like this is a surprise to you it shows how utterly uninterested people are in the issue.

sparky42

Yawlboy wrote: »

Its an All-Ireland body - covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic. I think its a great example of cross border cooperation - like the rugby team. :rolleyes:

Or the Coastguard covering some of NI, or most likely the NHS paying something into the Childrens Hospital when it gets built as it's been decided that NI is too small to sustain operations (in fact we cover it right now I thought). It's just the usual "OUTRAGE"!

sparky42

roundymac wrote: »

What's your suggestion, pay for it ourselves! we won't even pay for water FFS.

Or paying for defence since this is the military thread, but Ren2K7 has to be outraged about something involving the UK, it's just his nature.

johal

RNLI is a British isles body and no one has a bad word to say about it.


That is until now,

Once they know about it.

Markcheese

johal wrote:

RNLI is a British isles body and no one has a bad word to say about it.

RNLI isnt government funded though .., I would imagine that the irish part of the RNLI costs more to run than it fundraises every year..

sparky42

johal wrote: »

RNLI is a British isles body and no one has a bad word to say about it.


That is until now,

Once they know about it.

I AM OUTRAGED!!!!!!!
(not enough to fund a domestic only service for the last hundred years of course, but still OUTRAGE!)

Ren2k7

Grand stuff lads. I don't expect Irish people, least of all those here, to give a stuff about running our own state services. Tell you what, since no one gives a ****e about the lighthouse service being partially under UK authority let's do a similar deal with the Coast Guard (what little there is it of it) and the same of the NS. Actually, let's go one better and just get the Royal Navy to take over patrols in Irish waters. We could even give the Treaty Ports back to them.

ohnonotgmail

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Grand stuff lads. I don't expect Irish people, least of all those here, to give a stuff about running our own state services. Tell you what, since no one gives a ****e about the lighthouse service being partially under UK authority let's do a similar deal with the Coast Guard (what little there is it of it) and the same of the NS. Actually, let's go one better and just get the Royal Navy to take over patrols in Irish waters. We could even give the Treaty Ports back to them.

its a capital idea but i dont think they can spare the ships at the moment.

TripleC

BTW, has anybody ever read Adrian McIvors History of the Irish Naval Service?

I saw it online and was thinking of buying it.

Any good?

mikeym

a/tel wrote: »

Thats not possible with the current NS establishment of just over 1000 persons.

After taking out the shore based appointments of Senior NCOs/Senior Officers, transport fitters, ordnance personnel, etc your only talking about 600 persons. Add to that personnel long term excused sea for medical reasons and female personnel who are pre/post natal and the list shrinks further.

The machines might be able for 300 days, the personnel are not.

And there is a shortage of Engineering Officers.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/shortage-of-officers-threatens-to-keep-naval-service-vessels-in-port-385070.html

Navy ships are at risk of being grounded by mechanical or structural failure if a shortage of officers is not addressed quickly.
Naval Service sources claim these problems will arise if specialists aren’t recruited from the private sector. Officers who are shore-based have been drafted in to plug gaps on seagoing voyages, with the result that deficiencies are being felt in planning and organising general routine maintenance, refits, and ship life extension programmes.

The Naval Service sought permission on May 7 last from the Department of Defence to be allowed advertise to recruit highly-qualified engineers from the private sector through the ‘Direct Entry’ system. After a few months of training they could carry out all duties. The alternative is to take on officer cadets, but it takes up to eight years to train them in a specialist field.

Sources indicated that at this stage the problem is so acute they cannot wait that long and Direct Entry is needed now.

Morpheus

[MOD]
Please stick to the topic at hand - naval related issues.
Have moved the partnership and cooperation debate to this new thread however.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057568845
[/MOD]