3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Larbre34

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

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.

For 250k, I'd print out on nice fancy paper:

"1 No. Absalon Class hybrid Frigate/MRV with Flex Deck system and hangar accommodation for 2 No. Airbus H225M medium naval helicopters.

Contact Odense Maritime Technologies, Denmark.

Tanx X"

Heraldoffreeent

Larbre34 wrote: »

For 250k, I'd print out on nice fancy paper:

"1 No. Absalon Class hybrid Frigate/MRV with Flex Deck system and hangar accommodation for 2 No. Airbus H225M medium naval helicopters.

Contact Odense Maritime Technologies, Denmark.

Tanx X"

And " Can yee make de czech paidable to me lickthenstein Account?"

Dohvolle

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/0b371-competition-for-marine-advisor-services-to-support-the-procurement-of-a-multi-role-vessel/

I guess he wasn't taking the chance of announcing it last thursday, just in case.

sparky42

10+ years and they are putting out a press release about a Marine Advisor tender...FFS

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

10+ years and they are putting out a press release about a Marine Advisor tender...FFS

2005 was the first time I heard of it, and by then there was already very detailed drawings doing the rounds, as part of a slideshow during an open day in Haulbowline.
Unfortunately the pressing need to replace the P20 class got priority (being as how all of them had badly weathered hulls,(at least 2 had actual holes develop while on patrol) and Aoife had just had an embarrassing incident going full tilt into a mooring barge, caused by mechanical issues. Having been on the go for much longer than they were expected to (and much further too) their time up had passed.
Then someone (I wonder who) decided to exercise the option for a third OPV. Great. And a fourth one too! Wait, what? So now we have a navy with 9 ships, and an establishment for 8 ships, and staffing for 7 on a good day.
And then we dropped to the current situation, 3 ships due for replacement. 2 permanently parked up. Regardless of staffing or not.
A solution has presented. Replace small ships with big crews with small ships with small crews, then you theoretically have enough to crew 2 small ships from the one small ship you kept running while its sister ship tied to the wall.
Then your hands are free to replace the other ship tied to the wall, with a lead time of about 5 years, a CoDF , pay review body and a review of the DoD within that timescale you can hope that the crewing shortages will be sorted by the time it comes to cutting steel. You maintain a 9 ship navy without having to change the organisation of the NS that much.

There is a lot of negativity about this decision, but we are not talking about fixing todays problems with this ship. We are trying instead to look 40 years into the future, and ask "what will the NS need?".
This is the logical replacement for P31, based on the experience of world affairs and local security issues in recent years.
P21 was bringing Panhards and Nissan Patrols to Lebanon in the early 80s. This can do it better, bringing them hopefully sheltered from the elements, and self discharging (given the conditions seen in many of the Ports used for resupply).
It's well over 20 years now since the Army moved away from loading everything into the back of a soft skin truck, going to a destination, and hoping everything is still there, protected only by canvas when you reach said destination. Instead put it into a standard 20 foot container, load it onto your DROPS truck, drop it on the ground at destination. Ship can take said container, and whatever its contents may be, and bring it wherever, again reducing the labour required (Leb resupply saw everything being stored below deck in any available space, things went missing. A box of rifles for example, went missing, believed stolen only to be found years later dring a refit, having moved during the crossing out of sight under a walkway where nobody had cause to go in normal service.
So the ship will have space for up to 20 containers known as TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent units), either on its deck or below deck. out of the weather, and secure.
You have the vehicles, you have the equipment, may as well have room for the soldiers too. Soldiers have deployed aboard Eithne, either during Exercise, or operationally since not long after her entry into service. As an Island nation, with numerous offshore islands it makes sense to be able to bring soldiers anywhere in the territory (or further afield, if required.)

So that's why it has taken so long to get to this point.
Hopefully by 2025 we will be seeing grainy images of a ship in the process of being built for us in this role, wherever it will be. And hopefully the recruits and cadets who joined the navy against the odds in recent times will be the mariners who will be training and leading others aboard this ship.

And hopefully by then too the Air Corps will have decided if they want to get back into operating from ships or not. Either way if they don't others will, because the deck will be big enough to carry most modern naval helicopters in use.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

2005 was the first time I heard of it, and by then there was already very detailed drawings doing the rounds, as part of a slideshow during an open day in Haulbowline.
Unfortunately the pressing need to replace the P20 class got priority (being as how all of them had badly weathered hulls,(at least 2 had actual holes develop while on patrol) and Aoife had just had an embarrassing incident going full tilt into a mooring barge, caused by mechanical issues. Having been on the go for much longer than they were expected to (and much further too) their time up had passed.
Then someone (I wonder who) decided to exercise the option for a third OPV. Great. And a fourth one too! Wait, what? So now we have a navy with 9 ships, and an establishment for 8 ships, and staffing for 7 on a good day.
And then we dropped to the current situation, 3 ships due for replacement. 2 permanently parked up. Regardless of staffing or not.
A solution has presented. Replace small ships with big crews with small ships with small crews, then you theoretically have enough to crew 2 small ships from the one small ship you kept running while its sister ship tied to the wall.
Then your hands are free to replace the other ship tied to the wall, with a lead time of about 5 years, a CoDF , pay review body and a review of the DoD within that timescale you can hope that the crewing shortages will be sorted by the time it comes to cutting steel. You maintain a 9 ship navy without having to change the organisation of the NS that much.

There is a lot of negativity about this decision, but we are not talking about fixing todays problems with this ship. We are trying instead to look 40 years into the future, and ask "what will the NS need?".
This is the logical replacement for P31, based on the experience of world affairs and local security issues in recent years.
P21 was bringing Panhards and Nissan Patrols to Lebanon in the early 80s. This can do it better, bringing them hopefully sheltered from the elements, and self discharging (given the conditions seen in many of the Ports used for resupply).
It's well over 20 years now since the Army moved away from loading everything into the back of a soft skin truck, going to a destination, and hoping everything is still there, protected only by canvas when you reach said destination. Instead put it into a standard 20 foot container, load it onto your DROPS truck, drop it on the ground at destination. Ship can take said container, and whatever its contents may be, and bring it wherever, again reducing the labour required (Leb resupply saw everything being stored below deck in any available space, things went missing. A box of rifles for example, went missing, believed stolen only to be found years later dring a refit, having moved during the crossing out of sight under a walkway where nobody had cause to go in normal service.
So the ship will have space for up to 20 containers known as TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent units), either on its deck or below deck. out of the weather, and secure.
You have the vehicles, you have the equipment, may as well have room for the soldiers too. Soldiers have deployed aboard Eithne, either during Exercise, or operationally since not long after her entry into service. As an Island nation, with numerous offshore islands it makes sense to be able to bring soldiers anywhere in the territory (or further afield, if required.)

So that's why it has taken so long to get to this point.
Hopefully by 2025 we will be seeing grainy images of a ship in the process of being built for us in this role, wherever it will be. And hopefully the recruits and cadets who joined the navy against the odds in recent times will be the mariners who will be training and leading others aboard this ship.

And hopefully by then too the Air Corps will have decided if they want to get back into operating from ships or not. Either way if they don't others will, because the deck will be big enough to carry most modern naval helicopters in use.

I'm well aware off what's been this long and terrible story of the Eithne replacement, that doesn't change the fact that announcing a tender for an "Advisor" now is just can kicking or taking the absolute piss. If the navy hasn't firmed the specs up for what their requirements are by now they never will, if it's set put it out for Tender and see what Industry puts forward. But that would mean committing to the project, much easier to get an "advisor" kick it for another year or two and then come up with another excuse.



If a hull gets into the water by 2030 at this rate it will be a miracle.

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm well aware off what's been this long and terrible story of the Eithne replacement, that doesn't change the fact that announcing a tender for an "Advisor" now is just can kicking or taking the absolute piss. If the navy hasn't firmed the specs up for what their requirements are by now they never will, if it's set put it out for Tender and see what Industry puts forward. But that would mean committing to the project, much easier to get an "advisor" kick it for another year or two and then come up with another excuse.



If a hull gets into the water by 2030 at this rate it will be a miracle.

You seem to have missed what the role of the advisor will be.
Go back to IMO, it's well detailed there.
Exact same thing happened when they were building the P60s, it was the last step before RFT for the actual ship.

Dohvolle

DF COS just posted a link to an article he wrote about the MRV as a concept, in 2005.
By then B&V had come up with some very interesting designs for us (this was their proposal for NZ I understand, modified for our requirement. Sadly B&V no longer offer such a design (Based on the MEKO200 Frigate) and their parent company, Lurrsen, deal with all naval vessel construction.
https://www.dfmagazine.ie/dfmag_pdfs/2000_2009/Vol_65_2005/09_Dec/Vol_65_No_9_Dec_2005.pdf
Page 7.

sparky42

Given that the B&V had no hanger capabilities I wouldn't have thought it would be in the running anyway tbh.

Peregrine

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm well aware off what's been this long and terrible story of the Eithne replacement, that doesn't change the fact that announcing a tender for an "Advisor" now is just can kicking or taking the absolute piss. If the navy hasn't firmed the specs up for what their requirements are by now they never will, if it's set put it out for Tender and see what Industry puts forward. But that would mean committing to the project, much easier to get an "advisor" kick it for another year or two and then come up with another excuse.



If a hull gets into the water by 2030 at this rate it will be a miracle.

Tendering for experts to prepare a business case for an MRV for government approval, request for tenders, evaluate tenders and award the contract to the winning tender being described kicking the can down the road is an interesting take.

You could argue that the NS should have the expertise in house but they're literally asking someone to work with them on every stage of buying an MRV. How on earth is that kicking the can down the road?

Dohvolle

Peregrine wrote: »

Tendering for experts to prepare a business case for an MRV for government approval, request for tenders, evaluate tenders and award the contract to the winning tender being described kicking the can down the road is an interesting take.

You could argue that the NS should have the expertise in house but they're literally asking someone to work with them on every stage of buying an MRV. How on earth is that kicking the can down the road?

If anything it rules out chances of the minutiae being detailed before a tribunal explaining where it all went wrong in 10 years time.

I think the phrase is "due diligence".

sparky42

Peregrine wrote: »

Tendering for experts to prepare a business case for an MRV for government approval, request for tenders, evaluate tenders and award the contract to the winning tender being described kicking the can down the road is an interesting take.

You could argue that the NS should have the expertise in house but they're literally asking someone to work with them on every stage of buying an MRV. How on earth is that kicking the can down the road?

Because only last month the DOD were leaking that the project was paused due to the manpower crisis. now a tender for an advisor? At this stage I'm leaning towards it being something to say at Minsters questions to just have something to say.


I'm still not holding my breath for anything before 2030, not after how this has been handled so far.

roundymac

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

What did you mention NATO for, all the hug-a-trees plus people before profit/lefties will be up in arms over this.

roadmaster

In the next 24 months if they some how got crew levels back up would eithne go back to sea?

Dohvolle

Probably not at this stage.
Best she can hope for is to be used as alongside accom. Her time is up. She entered service when most of her crew weren't born.

Larbre34

roundymac wrote: »

What did you mention NATO for, all the hug-a-trees plus people before profit/lefties will be up in arms over this.

You're absolutely right of course.

Fortunately, Defence matters can be conducted without full disclosure and off the books if necessary, so what those eejits don't know won't hurt them.

mikeym

roadmaster wrote: »

In the next 24 months if they some how got crew levels back up would eithne go back to sea?

Probably not.

Larbre34

Can't see Eithne ever putting to sea again. At the same time, it would be a shame if she was disposed of. If there is room in the basin she could he used for training, especially of reservists, as well as overflow accommodation and for receiving tours etc.

However if that would be too costly an endeavour, I hope a decent disposal would be considered. Certainly don't want to see her end up in the hands of sub-Saharan rebels or some nonsense. She should be scrapped, or if feasible, stripped and sunk as an artificial reef and diving attraction at a suitable spot in Irish waters.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Can't see Eithne ever putting to sea again. At the same time, it would be a shame if she was disposed of. If there is room in the basin she could he used for training, especially of reservists, as well as overflow accommodation and for receiving tours etc.

However if that would be too costly an endeavour, I hope a decent disposal would be considered. Certainly don't want to see her end up in the hands of sub-Saharan rebels or some nonsense. She should be scrapped, or if feasible, stripped and sunk as an artificial reef and diving attraction at a suitable spot in Irish waters.

I doubt there would be space in the basin long term and that would still mean costs to keep her safe. Certainly I’d agree with her being sunk, either in a control manner for a reef, or to let the navy have an actual sink ex...

Larbre34

sparky42 wrote: »

I doubt there would be space in the basin long term and that would still mean costs to keep her safe. Certainly I’d agree with her being sunk, either in a control manner for a reef, or to let the navy have an actual sink ex...

How long would it actually take the rest of the Navy to sink Eithne, with deck weapons??

We've no anti-ship missiles. Scratch that, no Naval warfare missiles, period. No torpedoes either AFAIK.

Assuming Eithne had no munitions or fuel on board, they could pop away with the 76 and 20mm guns for hours and she wouldn't sink. It would actually take a few perfectly aimed hits just at the waterline to get her taking on water.

Pathetic really.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

How long would it actually take the rest of the Navy to sink Eithne, with deck weapons??

We've no anti-ship missiles. Scratch that, no Naval warfare missiles, period. No torpedoes either AFAIK.

Assuming Eithne had no munitions or fuel on board, they could pop away with the 76 and 20mm guns for hours and she wouldn't sink. It would actually take a few perfectly aimed hits just at the waterline to get her taking on water.

Pathetic really.

You do get that other navies use even small than 76mm in SinkExs? Also no offence to her builders but I'd hazard a bet that she's not as resistant as you assume. Either way why not?

roadmaster

Larbre34 wrote: »

How long would it actually take the rest of the Navy to sink Eithne, with deck weapons??

We've no anti-ship missiles. Scratch that, no Naval warfare missiles, period. No torpedoes either AFAIK.

Assuming Eithne had no munitions or fuel on board, they could pop away with the 76 and 20mm guns for hours and she wouldn't sink. It would actually take a few perfectly aimed hits just at the waterline to get her taking on water.

Pathetic really.

Park just off the coast let the army bring all there 105'S , Let the air corps arm the Pc9s and the navy bring a few ships and have a competition to see who sinks it first!

Larbre34

Lad with a Javelin would spoil the party pretty quick.

ohnonotgmail

Larbre34 wrote: »

Lad with a Javelin would spoil the party pretty quick.

would they not have to set it on fire first to get an infra-red lock?

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

You do get that other navies use even small than 76mm in SinkExs? Also no offence to her builders but I'd hazard a bet that she's not as resistant as you assume. Either way why not?

Without a crew she is very sinkable. Her watertight bulkheads are only watertight if you close the doors. Leave them open, Hole both engine rooms, shes goin down. Upset her trim and she's goin over.
There's a reason Naval crews spend so much time doing damage control.

roadmaster

If the Navy do get these kiwi boats where will they be based? In Wicklow you have Wicklow Town it's self and Arklow. In Dublin probably just Dun Laoirge and in Louth you have Drogheda and Dundalk. Dundalk maybe to small port but you would have the advantage of Aiken barracks beside it.

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

If the Navy do get these kiwi boats where will they be based? In Wicklow you have Wicklow Town it's self and Arklow. In Dublin probably just Dun Laoirge and in Louth you have Drogheda and Dundalk. Dundalk maybe to small port but you would have the advantage of Aiken barracks beside it.

Think the comments when it was reported suggested Dun Laoirge, and using some of the Barracks for the crews.

Yawlboy

Dohvolle wrote: »

Without a crew she is very sinkable. Her watertight bulkheads are only watertight if you close the doors. Leave them open, Hole both engine rooms, shes goin down. Upset her trim and she's goin over.
There's a reason Naval crews spend so much time doing damage control.

Totally agree with you. without a crew for damage control and closed hatches a small hole would sink it.

I served on Ciara in 1990 when we sank a 1000t dredger off Arklow. It was a flat bottom barge that had capsized and was a danger to shipping with only a portion of the hull showing.

We fired the 76mm at it but missed - think it was the first time that gun was fired in Irish service.

We used the GPMGs with AP rounds to punch holes in it and it sank in 20 mins or so.

jonnybigwallet

There was also an incident some years back when the NS sank a Spanish trawler that tried to ram one of their vessels. Also the RN sank a redundant frigate some years ago using the 76mm. So it can be done, even though the 76 is primarily an air defence weapon. I think they should sink it meself and might as well get the PC 9's in on the party to fire some rockets etc. T'would make a great recruiting video!

MAULBROOK

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

There was also an incident some years back when the NS sank a Spanish trawler that tried to ram one of their vessels. Also the RN sank a redundant frigate some years ago using the 76mm. So it can be done, even though the 76 is primarily an air defence weapon. I think they should sink it meself and might as well get the PC 9's in on the party to fire some rockets etc. T'would make a great recruiting video!

Might as well arm up the AW139s and have a field day of it.