3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

To play devil's advocate, that's all well and good for the UK, France, Spain etc. who have lots of OPV like vessels, and set them to work on those MOOTW tasks to flex a bit of soft power.

Do Finland and Sweden, to take two similarly neutal European countries, procure vessels for that purpose? They don't - when Sweden contributed to Operation Atalanta (a MOOTW mission), they used their largest vessel, Karlskrona (a minelayer) and then CB90s operating from a Dutch mothership. They deployed ships procured for the direct defence of their interests, not specifically for MOOTW.

The navy, the army and the air corps have as their primary purpose the defence of the state and, as a secondary purpose, peacekeeping and MOOTW. This is useful for diplomatic/foreign policy reasons, as well as to test soldiers, their training and equipment, but it should not dictate equipment specification until we can usefully defend ourselves like the Swedes and Finns.

You obviously need to think about fleet composition and sustaining a fleet at sea. The reason that the US Littoral combat ships are out of favour is their inability to deal with ASW targets such as submarines. A modern version of our old corvettes such as the planned European corvette is a minimum warship starting point. The Swedes and Netherlands do have MRV capable ships and always did. Both the old Karlskrona and the new Carlskrona, although tagged as Minelayers, are training ships for Midship men while the ALVSBORG is also a Command ship. The Netherlands have the Rotterdam class also available for disaster relief. In an uncertain environment we could not deploy a ship unless we can also provide, on call, a logistic and operational support unit. Why not say your concept for the PDF and it's branches in defence. Take into account you must be able to take a punch, give some back, and deter interference.

Everyone involved in that project from start to finish needs a prison sentence, collectively the LCS are beyond a joke and well into criminal activities. The latest bit of cracking in the hulls of the Indy variant, coming after the Freedom variants gearbox issues…It just never stops, and all of it was so very predictable. It’s insane that they are still building them when they are trying to decommission them so young.

The Danish Absalon is another type, though theirs packs a much heavier punch, and have recently been re-designated frigates. However they did not lose their large vehicle deck and stern ramps in the process.

It was the template, I understand.

There isn't a navy in Europe that can operate autonomously anymore. Even the Brits have permanently attached US and Dutch destroyers to their Carrier Strike Groups, because just the the LCS farce in America, the RN Type 45s are a bucket of sh...

It is plain that within an Alliance group all major units of individual countries will form part of geographic task groups. It is on the together we are stronger principle. Sweden has a good grasp on the Forces that she requires backed by a thriving technical Industry. Within some European Countries you have groupings for design of ships and aircraft. The uniformed branches need to take the initiative on their requirements and leave sewerage manufacture to others. However in conflict it has to be a combined effort to cover all tasks.

Must be GOOD FRIDAY with RED HERRINGS flying around. American Satellite info was available and fed to the Brits but none of that can predict what can happen in solitary brushfire wars. Ukraine is an example when everybody gives a hand. Haven't a clue what the Brits will do with their CV's but I'm sure their in somebody's ORDBATT.

An MRV has it's genesis in things that a navy is asked to do that requires large capacity for stores/ vehicles and personnel management, including hospital facilities and providing for those seeking refuge. It is not a Global Combat ship but it could be given an edge with a range of Defence weapons and surveillance electronics to deal with up to swarm attacks.

No, it doesn't tick the same boxes. The Dutch have colonies, a Marine Corps to go over beaches in Norway and are bascially a blue water navy. We're not. When they're not exercising for war, they can afford to put this ship to some use interfering with Somali pirates.

Australia has a million outlying islands that it needs to stop China from utilising (currently failing in the Solomons). We're 90 miles from Britain.

Are we going to have to go half way around the world to justify this thing??

Its clear from the 2015 White Paper that the DoD considers the Defence Forces to be for peacekeeping, filling sand bags and flying sick children to England. I suspect that the MRV will be excellent at these roles, as for the defence role - maybe a 76mm and a pointy bow.

The Commission report also preceded the first major war in Europe in 77 years. I'm not holding my breath for the large, lumbering HADR vessel in this context. I can only imagine that the NS personnel involved with the naval architects will be desperate to reconfigure this for a sensible defence purpose. It's that or a sale to Irish Ferries.

Wow. What big words you use.

Here's a picture of a ship.

Ancientmariner, you of all people will know that the 2015 paper and the revision only talk about preparing an actual defence, and that the only actions are in relation to ATCP and peacekeeping.

I was responding to an example of Australian planning for a similar ship, and I did not suggest that Australia had responsibility in the sense that those islands are 'dominions', but that Australia won't permit China to slip into the area and, unlike Ireland, needs ships to go out and control those islands.

If as you say the White Paper actually meant to defend the state from aggression, why are we seeing renders and descriptions of a ship that carries troops and vehicles abroad? Why a ship that is framed around a hospital facility? Why not a ship expressly built to defeat and deter (or at the very least, train the NS to this end) threats to the state at home?

Let's agree a bit of direction going forward, shall we? The DoD may not agree with this, but we're all well informed and we can probably get consensus.

This is an amphibious assault / landing ship. Another variation is the landing helicopter dock. They are multirole vessels for the purposes of bringing embarked landing craft and helicopters for the physical invasion by Marines.

We don't need one of those.

This is an auxiliary or support vessel, a combined fleet replenishment ship and oiler. It is used for the support of a medium size flotilla or fleet element where large patrol distances and deployments are a typical operation.

We don't need one of those.

This is a multi-role vessel, adapted from a civilian car ferry design. It is used for light military sealift, cargo, disaster and humanitarian response. It is not a military design and is both lightly armed and lightly armoured and its shallow seas ferry design has proven to be completely ineffective and unreliable for heavy ocean going operations.

We don't need one of those.

This is a multi-role light frigate / large corvette in the command and support role. It is based on a proven military blue water hull design, with basic anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine capabilities. It also has spacious modular interior spaces for configuration in assault, rescue and humanitarian roles, with a large ro-ro capacity with stern access and helicopter deck and hangar. She is 138m long and is manned by a crew of 160. She can additionally accommodate up to 300 troops or rescued persons, including a ready-up hospital facility.

I respectfully suggest, this is the closest thing to an MRV already in existence that matches our needs, in terms of size, capability and cost.