Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Options
1101102104106107163

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    While she may not quite be ready for the breakers yard, her days as a naval vessel are over. She would make a fine oceanographic research vessel though, for whatever years she has left, until her systems become uneconomical to maintain. She is older than her last crew, and one of her recent XOs was a toddler in the dockyard when she went down the Slipway at her launch. She owes the state nothing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Commissioned in November 1984, now 37yrs and 5 months in service. In Maintenance terms she may be viable as a medium range training unit especially to re-establish Air capability in the fleet for HCO, FDO, Firefighting, Helo refuelling, and Pilot training off Wicklow. She could also train crew in aspects of gunnery, radar operations, including long range air both raw and secondary. Re-establish ability to maintain JP5 fuel and cold start helos from ship's system. A second deck is useful if we are also having an MRV with a large Flight Deck for intership training.

    She could train also in standard ship training both alongside and at sea. It's the most versatile ship we ever had but was never exploited in full.

    If ME's are a problem then put new ones in and extend her for another 7 to 10 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 675 ✭✭✭Gary kk


    7 years would be a nice extension



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    Problem with gunnery is her main is unique to the fleet. Useful for seamanship training otherwise though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Gents....I am really sorry....I hadn't realized until today how small the new Lake class "ships" really are when I posted a couple of days ago that there might be the potential to re use the 57mm main gun off the Eithne to give them a bit more oomph. I have now seen that the Lakes have simply not got the deck space to accomodate this as the superstructure is quite massive compared to the size of the deck. In fact I don't know if it would even be possible to position a 20mm Rheinmettal cannon up front. As it stands they only have a small MG to deter and detain any rogue trawlers of drug smugglers which ain't a lot of firepower.

    I really endorse the idea that Ancient Mariner came up with very recently re giving the Eithne a new lease of life. It's going to take a while for this alleged new funding for the DF to come through so might as well spend some money out of the normal round of budget to make some improvements. Doubt if a new frigate or corvette could be up and running before 2026 even if ordered tomorrow..... BTW, I read today that the Poles have ordered 3 of the type 21's. Might be the kind of thing our guys end up with ? Have a jolly old weekend one and all!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    I meant to say type 31's



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,832 ✭✭✭Alkers


    Could she do any of this while permanently moored in DL?

    Could act as a base for the new training launch and the two lake class vessels until something more permanent is put in place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    A support ship would be better, with deck space and a set of cranes and hoists and room for workshops and extra accomodation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭Dohvolle




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,080 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I wish I knew, I have asked forum mods on a few occasions but to no avail.

    He's polluting threads at this point.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 675 ✭✭✭Gary kk


    Could be just your own clic, who knows really?



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Small ships like the LAKES do need support if based away from support facilities. It can range from off ship dormitory facilities to resupply including fuelling and repair. Motherships are a common feature of overseas deployment in other Navies. Eithne could be a source of support and HQ for smaller manned units. It would create some HR and Logs requirements for the Navy as a whole but not beyond their competence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,080 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Still no news on the LAKES. Personally, I think this deal will fall through as it looks like the NZ government are trying to get shut of a couple of dogs and we'd be better off with something a bit bigger. Like a couple more ROISIN class.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭sparky42




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Absolutely old chap. Same as yourself and your little clique.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,080 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    What we say is based in fact and on information in the public domain.

    You do realise the P50 class ended deliveries 20 years ago?

    You do realise they require more than double the crew of the Lake class?

    You do realise that it's a personnel problem they are trying to solve, not exacerbate?

    You do realise that just because the Department of Defence aren't giving you a daily briefing on every aspect of the delivery of the Lake class, that the deal isn't dead and that there is no doubt a huge diligence and logistical exercise involved in approving the ships for handover and in getting them shipped on an appropriate platform?

    You do realise that you talk an immense amount of complete rubbish?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    Immense is an understatement.

    Worth mentioning that the "small" Lake class IPV, at 55m are 13M longer than the Ton Class that were the predecessor of the Peacock, and only 7m Shorter than the Peacock. That's one RhIB length shorter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Not much tonnage though. Bit of a vomit comit in the Irish sea on a rough day.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,080 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Comet.

    Have you ever been to New Zealand JB? I have and I've sailed the Pacific coats of both the north and south island in the New Zealand Autumn and you may take it from me, the Irish Sea would only on a handful of days per year present sea conditions anything like what I saw on the edge of the NZ shelf.

    No more than the 700 tonne Peacocks they will be replacing, the Lake Class will be used prudently as an inshore asset. Nobody is expecting them to round Cape Horn any time soon.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Ah but what happens when you stick the 57mm mount on the front…



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    As long as you are all happy then I am happy



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    When we discuss crewing and the variation between ships it has to be based on the role and manning of the ship systems on a 24/7 basis. If a vessel has 2 x 20mm, 2x 12.7, 4 x gpmg's, need for boats deployments, operate ship's main armament, man Main control room and Damage control, man operations and fire control. Even without resupply of mounts it would take about 21 personnel for immediate action stations and 63 to cycle through 24 hours. You still need medical, galley, and Damage control/firefighting personnel. Our crewing is tight and in full action would be wearing. The corvettes in wartime were close to 75 and we had them at 68. Crewing will always effect continuous capability. Small transit crews are limited to singular tasks with intervening rest periods.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭sparky42


    And we have officially bought them, to be here next year once work is finished on them after being laid up:

    https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/b679d-announcement-of-the-purchase-of-two-inshore-patrol-vessels-ipvs-from-the-new-zealand-government/



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭Dohvolle




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭sparky42




  • Registered Users Posts: 24,080 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    🤣🤣

    No doubt JBW will be fierce upset that he wasn't kept abreast of the situation, or invited to the Base for the cupán tae agus píosa cáca milis.

    Good luck to LÉ Vigilant and LÉ Indomitable and God bless to all who sail on them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    I like the NZ decision to name the ships after unpronounceable lakes. We should do likewise.

    Rotoiti should be named after the great Irish lake Derravarragh (where the Children of Lir, already part of Naval heritage, resided)

    Pukaki should be named after the mystical Irish lake, Poulaphouca (literally, the hole of the demon)



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    More interestingly is how they are to be taken over so that crews are bedded in and operate the ship and it's equipment. The next decision is how to get them home and when they do come home where will they be permanently home ported so that berths and facilities are Naval use only. Names need serious thought but should be short and of value. We had wags at sea that always fixed on a rock at Inishkea North End which was Carrickmoylenacurrahoaga. It drove the navigator nuts because it had to be transcribed into the fair log for HQ.

    These craft were armed with 2 x 12.7mm and an 81mm mortar?? We should check that out as to concept.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    I'm not too displeased about this purchase. Tis fair value for money and hopefully leaves a bit in the budget more further additions to the fleet. Hope the new MPV has got plenty of firepower and isn't a car ferry with grey paint.



Advertisement