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
1119120122124125163

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,077 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I don't disagree that more international sharing is necessary and its clear the Government intend do to so within the limitations of current policy. But any sort of formalised alliance will require no less than a citizens assembly and a plebiscite, perhaps even a referendum if the momemtum to remove Article 29.9.

    Fortunately, Moskva won't be troubling us again🇺🇦



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


    There are other "Moskva"s. One of which was in our EEZ not long ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    If we take ongoing naval tasks that requires interaction of two or more naval assets such as in MCM and ASW, then we must find some way of working with submarines, and also clearing underwater ordnance, both contact and influenced types of mines, or live rounds of anything lost in training.

    It means we must work as opportunity arises with an MCM School and in exercises tracking submarines. we can do both without necessarily being in NATO but maybe get clearance to do so under PESCO. It is time to be positive and adopt training that has measurable results and certification for units that are qualified to undertake named tasks.

    All skills require on going training and evaluation and we need to follow that norm or fail to gain competence required of any Navy.



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


    I recall the NS did some ASW TRAINING a couple of years ago when the Dutch came on a visit with a sub..



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,077 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Have Coveney and Varadkar not long teased the acquisition of MCM vessels?

    They may not be in the current plans by name, but I always understood they were in the thinking of the 12 ship fleet?

    2 × MRV

    4 × OPV90

    2 × OPV80

    2 × IPV

    2 × MCMV



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


    Surely 2 of the 4 OPV's could be enhanced at the quarter life refit to do MCM? As an interim measure...I'd be the first to approve of a 12 ship navy, but I'm not banking on it happening any time soon.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    The last ship to have a passive and Active sonar PMS26 was P31 and it got silenced, along with Primary radar 135km and Secondary radar at about 175km, a Flight deck, a hanger, HIFR, 2 helicopters, an operations room, and a NATO rating of HOSTEC Level 1. We have a solution to everything that get's in the way, we kind of board it or withdraw budgets. If someone worked with a submarine it must have been decades ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,077 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The whole point about dedicated MCM vessels, is that their hulls are fibre-glass composite or non-ferrous metal, in other words, not magnetic.

    You can re-equip an existing OPV all you like for mine hunting, but you can't change the fact they have a sheet steel hull. Good look getting volunteers for that duty!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    The new Dutch and Belgian MCMVs have conventional steel hulls. There's nothing to stop them being modified for that role other than common sense.



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


    Thats minehunting of old, it isn't done that way any more. Now all you need is a ship capabble of carrying and remotely commanding a team of mine clearance USVs. Take a look at the Brlgian/NL vessels currently being built in France. They are a long way from the Tons or Hunts, or even the Sandowns.




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


    That was the plan, but nothing has been heard about the MRV for some time, officially. Kep in mind also that the IPV is a short term solution only to the loss of the CPVs, and the extra duties in the Irish see now that the UK is no longer a fellow EU member. The P60s will also be passing out of service early in the next decade, so expect to see P51 retire in about 10 years time (around the same time as when LOA3 should be happening).



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    While mine hunting and clearance diving can be done from any vessel fitted for the purpose, it is more than likely mine fields involving moored mines sown in numbers will still need to be swept or destroyed individually. a long process. I wouldn't put money on what ships will pass out of service first. Perhaps the acquired LAKES with Aluminium Construction might struggle to remain seaworthy in Northern Climes. We will have to see. There seems to be a bit of grey powdery marks around engine casings. Perhaps HAO?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    I'm hearing rumours that DL don't want the ships and won't be allocating any space to them, beyond what it does currently. Let's see how political this gets.



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


    End of the day it will come down to €€€€ and how much DL stands to get from it.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Not enough to turn the cruise ships, windfarm boats and foreign fishing vessels away, I'd imagine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    An yet they have room for 3 boat clubs that are struggling to keep a float.

    The local TDs are particualrly eager to get the navy in as they believe it will save th3 harbour

    Then we have towns along the west coast fighting for a base



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Going back in History, there was a Naval Mooring Buoy in DL. We used to chain to it for our stay there and land as necessary by Liberty launch. In return for ceding the Buoy to the HSS project we were given the East Pier which became known as the Naval Pier. I'd imagine we have a legal call to a berth.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,077 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    DLR Council shouldn't mistake Defence Forces installations for any common or garden public development, of a leisure or service variety.

    If the NS and DF and DoD recommend to the Govt and other Departments that Dun Laoghaire is the optimum location from which to operate East Coast patrols, then that's where the ships will be based and DLR may get with the programme.



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


    Hear Hear!



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Perhaps all that should have been thought about when the Government dumped the harbour onto the local authority, and walked away from the tens of millions of euro of upgrade work to be done. By decree of law, it's the Local Authorities harbour now, the State gave up its rights.

    In terms of "legal rights" to berthing, if the NS has a legal call on the East Pier berth, how come they never use it and go to the commercial berths instead? Be careful using legal calls, they may end the NS in an unusable location.

    The harbour is booming, like the rest of the country Covid has been great for leisure boating and the clubs are packed, week in, week out. You can't get a good second hand boat for love nor money. It could be the NS has missed the boat on where its future lies on the east coast.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    If there is an issue with DL, there is no problem in using Arklow,Dublin Port,Drogheda or Port Oriel if the nessceary Funds are invested in infastructure to make it work



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


    Why do you think DL is being considered? Because almost no funds are required to bring it up to standard, unlike the other suggestions.

    Arkla: Miles from any civilisation, same as Drogheda. Port Oriel? You do understand what the IPV role will be, do you? COP ON! Not to mention the backwater is too small for the smallest vessels the NS will ever operate. Do you own land there or something?

    Wait.

    You expect the DoD to go to a dive like port oriel and build a harbour just for the 2 ships of the NS that might use it, in the hope that the Fishy men, WAFIs, and the other operators of floating drinks cabinets have somewhere to keep their floating 2nd mortgage?


    That is not how it works. The NS is struggling to Keep ships at sea and crews on ships. Building harbours for those to mean to build their own is not the solution. Galway is another place that a certain element believe the state should provide a deepwater harbour for. You can find this mentality in a wide range of CoDF submissions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Excuse me Arklow is up and coming its just the people thats the problem.

    As for port oriel lovely place ( Apart from the people)

    Could the old ferry Terminal in DL be taken back and used as a base?



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


    I like Arklow.



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


    I spent 3 months living on a trawler yacht down there in me youth. Had a great cracking all together...



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Haulbowline is miles from civilisation.

    Dun Laoghaire is one of the most difficult parts of Dublin to get to, and your average NS sailor cannot afford to live nearby.

    So why not Arklow, what is wrong with the infrastructure?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,240 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    Harbour is not deep enough for what ye are looking.



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


    Define "base"? We are not moving the entire NS to DL here, (or galway for that matter). The plan seems to be have facilities there so the ships can homeport on the East coast, where they will spend most of their working life. You don't need oil tanks, plenty of storage in the port already. Quicker to top up from road tankers. You only need basic overnight accom facilities. Think your average self catering hostel, so the crews don't need to live aboard ship when not at sea, and basic admin facilities, with secure access 24/7, easily managed by private security and modern technology.

    Consider with the move to double crewing, this may be the crews workplace when not at sea. In line with all other military facilities in the state, there would be an expectation that basic level of Gym would also be included.

    While there is a plan to use the ferry terminal as a hot-desking hub, there would be nothing stopping the DF from taking over a waterside portion of the building for their use. I never used the new terminal, I'm unfamiliar with its internal layout, but on the map, there is secure quay space and parking already. I'm sure the 4 man team who recently visited NZ might have picked up a few ideas with their NS operation too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    In Base i mean Admin, Spares , Beds,Food etc. DL for transport links would be execellent alone .

    As for why said other locations. If there is push back against the Navy moving in they may need to look at plan B.

    Can central state take back facilites from a Local Autority easily?



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


    DL is not an inaccessible place. It's on the Dart and not far out from the centre.



Advertisement