3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

We can, the question is what the three hulls are doing right now that they would have to stop doing to counter the Scottish Photo op.

PHOTOBOMB!

Markcheese

Dohvolle wrote: »

So is this, but it still has no authority to prevent other vessels from fishing anywhere they want to. (unless it is displaying the appropriate lights and shapes, of course).

Incidentally , a slightly bigger version of that ,with the ability to take ro/ro and,or 20 foot containers anda helicopter hanger could be a good bet for the eithne replacement if it ever comes ..they're multi purpose vessels designed to keep working in the worst of weather and conditions ...

Widdensushi

Markcheese wrote: »

Incidentally , a slightly bigger version of that ,with the ability to take ro/ro and,or 20 foot containers anda helicopter hanger could be a good bet for the eithne replacement if it ever comes ..they're multi purpose vessels designed to keep working in the worst of weather and conditions ...

Totally ignoring the fact that irish people no longer are willing to go to sea, be it merchant or navy, the fact that we have hundreds of millions invested in ships that are primarily for fishery protection and the UK has similar sized vessels that need a third of the crew of the Irish vessels, I don't disagree that a flagship and a number of more economical vessels would have been the correct approach, but with 4 relatively new vessels, 2 not that old, with high running costs that we can’t get crew for I don't think it is the time for a large investment in a new flagship.

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

Totally ignoring the fact that irish people no longer are willing to go to sea, be it merchant or navy, the fact that we have hundreds of millions invested in ships that are primarily for fishery protection and the UK has similar sized vessels that need a third of the crew of the Irish vessels, I don't disagree that a flagship and a number of more economical vessels would have been the correct approach, but with 4 relatively new vessels, 2 not that old, with high running costs that we can’t get crew for I don't think it is the time for a large investment in a new flagship.

Everything you just said was wrong. That's quite an achievement.

Widdensushi

Dohvolle wrote: »

Everything you just said was wrong. That's quite an achievement.

So you think there should be big investment in more ships when the ones we have are tied up due to lack of crew?

donvito99

Widdensushi wrote: »

Totally ignoring the fact that irish people no longer are willing to go to sea, be it merchant or navy, the fact that we have hundreds of millions invested in ships that are primarily for fishery protection and the UK has similar sized vessels that need a third of the crew of the Irish vessels, I don't disagree that a flagship and a number of more economical vessels would have been the correct approach, but with 4 relatively new vessels, 2 not that old, with high running costs that we can’t get crew for I don't think it is the time for a large investment in a new flagship.

Dohvolle wrote: »

Everything you just said was wrong. That's quite an achievement.

The River Class OPVs are comparable in complement to the SB Class, the Batch 2 Rivers are significantly larger in complement.

I think he might be confusing the fact that the Rivers are operated with 3 crews (?) In order to put to see most of the year.

Widdensushi

Dohvolle wrote: »

We need to rein everything back here. While the scottish vessel may be grey, it is an unarmed civilian fishery protection vessel with a crew of about 15.

The jura class is approximately 2200 tonnes, similar to the four newest Irish naval vessels

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

The jura class is approximately 2200 tonnes, similar to the four newest Irish naval vessels

So what? It isn't a naval vessel in any way shape or form.

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

So you think there should be big investment in more ships when the ones we have are tied up due to lack of crew?

Yes. Because the crewing system will pass, but the ships we invest in today will still be in use long after the recruits of today have left the service.
The last OCs of some of the P20s were born after the ships were built in the 70s.

Widdensushi

Dohvolle wrote: »

Yes. Because the crewing system will pass, but the ships we invest in today will still be in use long after the recruits of today have left the service.
The last OCs of some of the P20s were born after the ships were built in the 70s.

We have 5 "operational" ships, I am guessing they are the last 5 built 2001,2014,2015, 2016 and 2019?

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

We have 5 "operational" ships, I am guessing they are the last 5 built 2001,2014,2015, 2016 and 2019?

Your point being???
We have 9 operational ships.
2 are tied up in operational reserve. (1984, 1985)
1 is undergoing refit, fully crewed(1999)
1 is being repaired after a recent fire aboard, fully crewed. (2001)
The rest remain available for duty.(1985, 2014, 2015,2016, 2019)
L.E. Emer was decommissioned in 2013, having entered service in 1977. That's why it pays to make a long term decision. There has been crewing shortages before. It passes. The NS undertook a huge recruitment drive in 1982/83 to crew Eithne, taking on an extra 100 recruits.
Ships need to be replaced when they retire, preferably with a similar capability, ideally with a greater one. L.E Eithne (which was in use throughout 2020 assisting the HSE with the COVID-19 effort on the City Quays in Cork) entered service as a Helicopter equipped patrol vessel in 1984. Her time as an active patrol vessel has passed, regardless of crewing issues. The plans for her replacement will equip the NS for at least 2 generations of crew, and equip it for a number of possible roles it may be expected to carry out.
The current fleet size and it's area of operations is the equivalent of having one Garda Patrol car for the island of Ireland. Limited to 40km/h. The lead time to entry of a ship into service is in the region of 5 years. Not having crew for it today is no reason to decide not to have the ship in 5 years, but that is what you are proposing.

Tabnabs

More trouble for the INS. Two ships alongside due to Covid and a third likely to join them. Doesn't rain, but it pours...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40201577.html

LÉ Ciara and LÉ William Butler Yeats have been called ashore after Covid-19 cases were reported onboard them.

A suspect case has also been reported on LÉ James Joyce, which could lead to that vessel being tied up like the others.

Dohvolle

Tabnabs wrote: »

More trouble for the INS. Two ships alongside due to Covid and a third likely to join them. Doesn't rain, but it pours...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40201577.html

Inevitable. With a population of 4m, and over 120000 cases in Ireland, that it would impact an organisation of this size, whose job involves dealing with the public in very close confines.

4m/0.12m = 1 in every 33 people in Ireland has it or had it since last march. With a crew of around 50 per ship, most living far from the naval base, after Christmas it was inevitable. I hope those infected make a full recovery and wish them well.

jonnybigwallet

Looks like them Scots got wind of our problems with crewing due to covid and took advantage of it. Blame it all on the Examiner for letting the cat out of the bag.

Larbre34

Tied up my ass.

They need to test all the crew on all the affected ships ASAP, sort out who needs to be quarantined, get them into deep clean teams to sort out the ships, then form crews from whomever is healthy and get at least 1 or 2 of those vessels back on patrol. This isn't the local effin nursery school.

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Tied up my ass.

They need to test all the crew on all the affected ships ASAP, sort out who needs to be quarantined, get them into deep clean teams to sort out the ships, then form crews from whomever is healthy and get at least 1 or 2 of those vessels back on patrol. This isn't the local effin nursery school.

That's not how testing works. You must have symptoms first, otherwise the test is wasted. Could take 2 weeks from being in contact with infected persons before symptoms display.
In reality best practice to reduce chance of further spread is to quarintine everyone who worked with the infected people for 2 weeks. If no symptoms, then back to work.

That's the advice from NPHET and the HSE to everyone else.

What have you got against the nursery school in Effin?

saabsaab

Dohvolle wrote: »

Your point being???
We have 9 operational ships.
2 are tied up in operational reserve. (1984, 1985)
1 is undergoing refit, fully crewed(1999)
1 is being repaired after a recent fire aboard, fully crewed. (2001)
The rest remain available for duty.(1985, 2014, 2015,2016, 2019)
L.E. Emer was decommissioned in 2013, having entered service in 1977. That's why it pays to make a long term decision. There has been crewing shortages before. It passes. The NS undertook a huge recruitment drive in 1982/83 to crew Eithne, taking on an extra 100 recruits.
Ships need to be replaced when they retire, preferably with a similar capability, ideally with a greater one. L.E Eithne (which was in use throughout 2020 assisting the HSE with the COVID-19 effort on the City Quays in Cork) entered service as a Helicopter equipped patrol vessel in 1984. Her time as an active patrol vessel has passed, regardless of crewing issues. The plans for her replacement will equip the NS for at least 2 generations of crew, and equip it for a number of possible roles it may be expected to carry out.
The current fleet size and it's area of operations is the equivalent of having one Garda Patrol car for the island of Ireland. Limited to 40km/h. The lead time to entry of a ship into service is in the region of 5 years. Not having crew for it today is no reason to decide not to have the ship in 5 years, but that is what you are proposing.

What about an all weather airship? Armed with a fast firing gun and drones? Fast, could land anywhere and send a RIB onto the sea.

Larbre34

Dohvolle wrote: »

That's not how testing works. You must have symptoms first, otherwise the test is wasted.

Not correct. Completely asymptomatic people are commonly testing positive. Some never develop symptoms, but are still infectious.

But I digress. I use the example of a nursery school, not to denigrate nursery schools, but to emphasise we are talking about the Defence Forces here, not some discretionary consumer service.

Crew the ships to a minimum operational level, put the Medics to work on board carrying out daily testing (we are after all talking about a service that themselves hosted testing centres), have everyone use masks and gloves while on duty and in common areas and get on with the job.

If its a good enough system to keep elite sporting codes going, its good enough for the DF to keep at their duties.

Markcheese

saabsaab wrote: »

What about an all weather airship? Armed with a fast firing gun and drones? Fast, could land anywhere and send a RIB onto the sea.

Airship as in the hindenberg ?
Or a sea plane ? Either way wouldn't want to be out in bad weather ..

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not correct. Completely asymptomatic people are commonly testing positive. Some never develop symptoms, but are still infectious.

But I digress. I use the example of a nursery school, not to denigrate nursery schools, but to emphasise we are talking about the Defence Forces here, not some discretionary consumer service.

Crew the ships to a minimum operational level, put the Medics to work on board carrying out daily testing (we are after all talking about a service that themselves hosted testing centres), have everyone use masks and gloves while on duty and in common areas and get on with the job.

If its a good enough system to keep elite sporting codes going, its good enough for the DF to keep at their duties.

You have never been on a ship, have you?

sparky42

saabsaab wrote: »

What about an all weather airship? Armed with a fast firing gun and drones? Fast, could land anywhere and send a RIB onto the sea.

Ah no.

thomil

saabsaab wrote: »

What about an all weather airship? Armed with a fast firing gun and drones? Fast, could land anywhere and send a RIB onto the sea.

The United States tried something along those lines in the 1920s with the USS Akron and the USS Macon, two rigid airships with a small embarked air group to act as flying scout cruisers. It didn't end well at all, with both airships crashing. And that was in relatively benign weather conditions compared go some of the stuff you'd have to deal with over the North Atlantic.

saabsaab

thomil wrote: »

The United States tried something along those lines in the 1920s with the USS Akron and the USS Macon, two rigid airships with a small embarked air group to act as flying scout cruisers. It didn't end well at all, with both airships crashing. And that was in relatively benign weather conditions compared go some of the stuff you'd have to deal with over the North Atlantic.

Airborne aircraft carriers! Pity they didn't have one off Pearl Harbour.



Recent article below



https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27546051/airships-us-navy/

ohnonotgmail

saabsaab wrote: »

Airborne aircraft carriers! Pity they didn't have one off Pearl Harbour.



Recent article below



https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27546051/airships-us-navy/

I stopped reading at this

Airships are no longer filled with hydrogen, instead filled with non-flammable helium, and are actually more difficult to shoot down than one might think.

sparky42

saabsaab wrote: »

Airborne aircraft carriers! Pity they didn't have one off Pearl Harbour.



Recent article below



https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27546051/airships-us-navy/

Why? They would have been cut to bits easily by Japanese forces, the planes that they could use were extremely limited and wouldn't be able to take more modern fighters.

saabsaab

sparky42 wrote: »

Why? They would have been cut to bits easily by Japanese forces, the planes that they could use were extremely limited and wouldn't be able to take more modern fighters.

Probably, but if the had developed might have been better? Also they would have been able to radio a warning?

sparky42

saabsaab wrote: »

Probably, but if the had developed might have been better? Also they would have been able to radio a warning?

Enough to be able to take "modern" aircraft? Highly unlikely (and what doesn't get built given the funding for the US Military pre-WW2). The US had plenty of warnings and capabilities to detect the attack, they just screwed up by the numbers. An Airship getting in the middle wouldn't change much.

saabsaab

sparky42 wrote: »

Enough to be able to take "modern" aircraft? Highly unlikely (and what doesn't get built given the funding for the US Military pre-WW2). The US had plenty of warnings and capabilities to detect the attack, they just screwed up by the numbers. An Airship getting in the middle wouldn't change much.

The warning came from a radar station but the Japanese planes were assumed to be friendly aircraft. If they attacked an airship say 100 miles out then there would be no doubt.

Pat Dunne

Has this topic turned into Irish Fantasy Steampunk Naval Service?

saabsaab

True. can we send a ship or two to rockall?