3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

mikeym

Dohvolle wrote: »

What makes you say that?
Is it the well reported fact that the NS is under-strength by 200 and declining,
or is it something else?

I should have mentioned that theres no point in building a big multi role vessel if there isnt anyone to crew it.

Dohvolle

mikeym wrote: »

I should have mentioned that theres no point in building a big multi role vessel if there isnt anyone to crew it.

That's not how it works.
You don't build ships for today. You build them for the next 30+ years. The ship it was due to replace, it's launch I attended when I was still in Primary school. I'm almost 50 now. It barely resembles , internally and externally, the ship that went down the slip back then. It was designed for helicopters, we no longer have helicopters that can land on it, and the deck is no longer capable of holding a helicopter if we did. its Ops room was repurposed, and much of it's sensors were removed as they became obsolete. The cabins designated for aircrew were repurposed for other needs. The Hangar became a gym/briefing room.
By the time this ship was built, the crewing issue could well have passed.
But once you "pause" it yet again, time passes, needs change, and who knows the UK may make us an offer we can't refuse on some Type 31 Frigates instead (as long as we arm them ourselves).
Then the reason for the EPV/MRV, and the missions it could have done, the capability it could have brought to the entire defence forces will be gone.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

That's not how it works.
You don't build ships for today. You build them for the next 30+ years. The ship it was due to replace, it's launch I attended when I was still in Primary school. I'm almost 50 now. It barely resembles , internally and externally, the ship that went down the slip back then. It was designed for helicopters, we no longer have helicopters that can land on it, and the deck is no longer capable of holding a helicopter if we did. its Ops room was repurposed, and much of it's sensors were removed as they became obsolete. The cabins designated for aircrew were repurposed for other needs. The Hangar became a gym/briefing room.
By the time this ship was built, the crewing issue could well have passed.
But once you "pause" it yet again, time passes, needs change, and who knows the UK may make us an offer we can't refuse on some Type 31 Frigates instead (as long as we arm them ourselves).
Then the reason for the EPV/MRV, and the missions it could have done, the capability it could have brought to the entire defence forces will be gone.

Given the usual rate capital procurement goes through, even if the project had moved to the next stage as reportedly planned, by the time the new hull would be in service, either the manpower crisis would have been arrested at least if not reversed, or the Navy would have ceased to be operational. Yeah gapping this now means likely the project will never happen and the NS will remain a OPV Coastal Patrol force, something I'm sure would make the DOD happy.

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

Given the usual rate capital procurement goes through, even if the project had moved to the next stage as reportedly planned, by the time the new hull would be in service, either the manpower crisis would have been arrested at least if not reversed, or the Navy would have ceased to be operational. Yeah gapping this now means likely the project will never happen and the NS will remain a OPV Coastal Patrol force, something I'm sure would make the DOD happy.

It's like the DoD taking revenge for the fuss over overseas allowance. Now it won't be an issue, as any notion of having a deploy-able asset(other than an under-armed, non-heli capable opv) is put to bed.

jonnybigwallet

Yeah. A real kick in the teeth for the military. Handing back the 50 million underspend is ridiculous when a wee bit of that would fund a decent pay rise and balance carried forward to buy the new MRV.

Obviously the skills needed by naval personnel are not readily available on the open market and need in house training. However I believe I know how to solve the Army manning crisis at a stroke. I'll post about this later on another thread.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

It's like the DoD taking revenge for the fuss over overseas allowance. Now it won't be an issue, as any notion of having a deploy-able asset(other than an under-armed, non-heli capable opv) is put to bed.

Are you suggesting the DOD might be petty and vindictive? Never...

sparky42

mikeym wrote: »

I should have mentioned that theres no point in building a big multi role vessel if there isnt anyone to crew it.

Even though this is a capital expenditure and cancelling it won’t make a blind bit of difference to the manpower crisis, all this means is DOD pats themselves on the back for handing back more millions to Finance while doing nothing for the retention crisis.

donvito99

There was a very interesting piece in the IT on Friday about the toxic relationship between the DF and the DoD, and the unusual - by comparative international standards - influence which the DoD has over basic, day to day operations of the DF

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/the-cold-war-between-the-irish-military-and-the-civilians-in-charge-of-them-1.4489731

Larbre34

Funnily enough, and I have some past experience of this, the worst thing you can do with a public service budget is send it back.

The DoF don't like to look like the idiots that gave you money you hadn't the capacity to spend. DoD will be very unpopular for quitting on the project.

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Funnily enough, and I have some past experience of this, the worst thing you can do with a public service budget is send it back.

The DoF don't like to look like the idiots that gave you money you hadn't the capacity to spend. DoD will be very unpopular for quitting on the project.

Based on their WP implementation update, they hand it back because they have failed to commence the projects the money was earmarked for during the fiscal year.
That's incompetence, pure and simple. No other dept does this.

Markcheese

Dohvolle wrote: »

Based on their WP implementation update, they hand it back because they have failed to commence the projects the money was earmarked for during the fiscal year.
That's incompetence, pure and simple. No other dept does this.

I thought many government departments were doing that this year because of covid ?
Obviously not health ,social welfare or justice who've been a teeny bit busy ...

Dohvolle

Markcheese wrote: »

I thought many government departments were doing that this year because of covid ?
Obviously not health ,social welfare or justice who've been a teeny bit busy ...

In a time of crisis/international emergency it's acceptable. Apart from 2020, there has been nothing of the sort though.

roundymac

sparky42 wrote: »

Are you suggesting the DOD might be petty and vindictive? Never...

Civil Servents are.:mad:

roadmaster

Mary lou friends will out number the navy the way numbers are going!

mikeym

Dohvolle wrote: »

That's not how it works.
You don't build ships for today. You build them for the next 30+ years. The ship it was due to replace, it's launch I attended when I was still in Primary school. I'm almost 50 now. It barely resembles , internally and externally, the ship that went down the slip back then. It was designed for helicopters, we no longer have helicopters that can land on it, and the deck is no longer capable of holding a helicopter if we did. its Ops room was repurposed, and much of it's sensors were removed as they became obsolete. The cabins designated for aircrew were repurposed for other needs. The Hangar became a gym/briefing room.
By the time this ship was built, the crewing issue could well have passed.
But once you "pause" it yet again, time passes, needs change, and who knows the UK may make us an offer we can't refuse on some Type 31 Frigates instead (as long as we arm them ourselves).
Then the reason for the EPV/MRV, and the missions it could have done, the capability it could have brought to the entire defence forces will be gone.

You make a great point but unfortunately the government have no interest in fixing the retention crisis in the NS.

This so called Independant Commission is just a smokescreen.

mikeym

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40248680.html?fbclid=IwAR1sJiZsCxiLLduuwxfJEllMKV1cPcGx_3eWzXWdPvvSDsNWOocv213q3SU

Morale at an all time low.

No retention policies.

Cant keep the Engine Room Artificers.

Thank You Fine Gael and Minister Coveney for doing an amazing job :rolleyes:

Dohvolle

mikeym wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40248680.html?fbclid=IwAR1sJiZsCxiLLduuwxfJEllMKV1cPcGx_3eWzXWdPvvSDsNWOocv213q3SU

Morale at an all time low.

No retention policies.

Cant keep the Engine Room Artificers.

Thank You Fine Gael and Minister Coveney for doing an amazing job :rolleyes:

Not just ERAs that they can't keep. Commops and RRTs too. If they could operate the ships by remote control, and just send them out with boarding parties aboard they would. While you continue to gived skilled experienced people poor pay AND treat them like crap this will continue. Plenty of civvy jobs, at sea and ashore will pay skilled ex navy folk money they would only see at the top of their pay scale. Sure the job security may not be as good, but paying bills is not about job security.

roadmaster

mikeym wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40248680.html?fbclid=IwAR1sJiZsCxiLLduuwxfJEllMKV1cPcGx_3eWzXWdPvvSDsNWOocv213q3SU

Morale at an all time low.

No retention policies.

Cant keep the Engine Room Artificers.

Thank You Fine Gael and Minister Coveney for doing an amazing job :rolleyes:

In fairness to the part time minister Mr. Coveney most of the damage was done by his buddy Leo & the clown Paul.

On a separate note i see in todays examiner there is calls for the return to a 3 brigade army

Dohvolle

roadmaster wrote: »

In fairness to the part time minister Mr. Coveney most of the damage was done by his buddy Leo & the clown Paul.

On a separate note i see in todays examiner there is calls for the return to a 3 brigade army

The problem with having a relatively young front bench is they have no memory of the importance of the Defence Forces in time of actual crisis. They forget the reason why we had Army doing CIT escorts. They forget why every garda border checkpoint had to have a section of soldiers protecting it.
Simon may have better memory, with his late father being a minister during darker times.
But with as much respect as I can muster for Leo as former taoiseach, you could see from his demeanour at state occasions he had no idea what he was supposed to do at a GoH, or who he was reviewing. Leo was born in 1979, spending most of his life in Castleknock, Trinners or Mumbai he would have had little if any interaction with the DF, apart from maybe driving past Collins, Clancy or McKee as he took the bus up the quays.
Even then his political life brought him nowhere near the Defence Forces, entering the Dail in 2007, being in opposition (as spokesman for Enterprise, Trade and Employment) until becoming first minister for Transport in 2011, then Health in 2014, before spending a wet weekend in Social Welfare before becoming Taoiseach in 2017 (against the wishes of the Party Grassroots) at the age of 38, and possibly unknown to himself becoming minister for Defence.
A portfolio he has shown zero interest in, either as minister or otherwise, for over 3 years of neglect, at the end of at least 10 years of neglect.
The minister should know what his department is for.
Willie O Dea thought it was for parades to boost his own ego.
Tony Killeen had just found his way before becoming ill, and may have been a good minister, if he had more time.
Eamon O'Cuiv never made it to his Ministerial office.
Alan Shatter stopped listening after the words "Minister for Justice and..." but did manage to sign contracts for new ships.
The fact is there has not been a dedicated minister for defence since Willie O'Dea 11 years ago. 11 years with nobody fully at the helm. 11 years for the DoDSecGen to build an empire of no hope.

Peregrine

A new DoD tender for "Advisor services to support the procurement" of an MRV was published. 3 year contract worth €250,000 supporting business case development, final specifications, request for tenders, review of tenders and contract award.

Marine Advisor Services to support the procurement of a Multi-Role Vessel

The White Paper on Defence 2015 provides for the replacement of the current Naval Service flagship LÉ Eithne, which is approaching its end of lifespan, with a Multi-Role Vessel, which will be enabled for helicopter operations and will have a freight carrying capacity.

It is the Government’s intent that this new vessel will be tailor made to meet the requirements of the Defence Forces, with a design specification capable of providing a flexible and adaptive capacity for a wide range of maritime tasks, both at home and overseas.

It will be enabled for helicopter operations and it will also require a freight carrying capacity which will allow the Naval Service to transport personnel, freight and mission equipment to areas of operations.

The procurement of the MRV is in strategic alignment with Government Policy. The MRV is included in the Government National Development Plan as a major capital project and is listed in the Defence Equipment Development Plan. The intention is that the procurement will be conducted in accordance with contemporary and emerging best practice in government procurement.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/185941/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

jonnybigwallet

Good find! So something beginning to happen it seems. Bids are due in 11 May this year. Wonder who the bidders will be.

Dohvolle

It's a start at least.
Not quite cutting steel just yet though.

roadmaster

The way things ae going they may have to tender for a crew as well!

Dohvolle

roadmaster wrote: »

The way things ae going they may have to tender for a crew as well!

Looks like the ship is about 5 years off, a lot can happen, staffing wise, in 5 years.
The RN had similar issues, and changed their recruiting profile, instead of just taking teenagers straight from school, instead they also targeted those in their 30s, who had skills, but no trade. The guys and girls who were probably doing basic maintenance in whatever civvy job they were at, handy with a screwdriver and spanner, but nothing on paper. Took them in, trained them up as specialists and technicians, appointed them at PO rank (not quite the same as our PO).
It will take some imagination to bring the NS numbers up to where they should be, and taking in lots of recruits is not the solution. The gaps are in the middle, where the skills are, people with 10 years service or more. They are the cement that holds the whole organisation together.

Larbre34

Its an interesting tender. I mean great that they recognise what they don't know, but who's going to advise them on ship design specifications other than ship designers who sell the damn things in the first place.

Personally, if I were looking for advisors, I'd go to NATO (MARCOM) and keep it on the downlow.

jonnybigwallet

It's also a pretty low value tender. 250,000 over 12 months is only 20 grand a month. That doesn't buy you much expertise nowadays. Not sure who would want to bid on that.

Larbre34

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

It's also a pretty low value tender. 250,000 over 12 months is only 20 grand a month. That doesn't buy you much expertise nowadays. Not sure who would want to bid on that.

You might get a consortium of retired officers from overseas who do consultancy, wouldn't have to be a big firm necessarily.

Heraldoffreeent

Larbre34 wrote: »

You might get a consortium of retired officers from overseas who do consultancy, wouldn't have to be a big firm necessarily.

Doesn't have to be 12 months work either, and with the type of stuff I've seen over the last 10 years, cut and paste is yer only man.

roadmaster

Dohvolle wrote: »

Looks like the ship is about 5 years off, a lot can happen, staffing wise, in 5 years.
The RN had similar issues, and changed their recruiting profile, instead of just taking teenagers straight from school, instead they also targeted those in their 30s, who had skills, but no trade. The guys and girls who were probably doing basic maintenance in whatever civvy job they were at, handy with a screwdriver and spanner, but nothing on paper. Took them in, trained them up as specialists and technicians, appointed them at PO rank (not quite the same as our PO).
It will take some imagination to bring the NS numbers up to where they should be, and taking in lots of recruits is not the solution. The gaps are in the middle, where the skills are, people with 10 years service or more. They are the cement that holds the whole organisation together.

They problem is that cement is leaving as well with more going shortly

Larbre34

roadmaster wrote: »

They problem is that cement is leaving as well with more going shortly

Who?