I like the Absalons concept for NZ, but my one problem is that they lack the vital medium Amphib capabilty requried for operations in the South Pacific. If they can be fitted with a LCM and carry the Combat Boats then I've got no problem.
New ship(s) for Irish Naval Service???
- Thread starter TerryD
- Start date
I like the Absalons concept for NZ, but my one problem is that they lack the vital medium Amphib capabilty requried for operations in the South Pacific. If they can be fitted with a LCM and carry the Combat Boats then I've got no problem.
They only carry these little things - http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htmI like the Absalons concept for NZ, but my one problem is that they lack the vital medium Amphib capabilty requried for operations in the South Pacific. If they can be fitted with a LCM and carry the Combat Boats then I've got no problem.
But the modifications needed to carry the 55 ton LCM the MRV carries should be small. Bigger crane, modified ramp?
Keep in mind the modified civilian ferry design of the Canterbury will cost about twice as much as the civilian ferries that were built a few years before. I am sure much of this extra expenditure included the two cranes, the landing craft, the extra fire extinguishers, the Bushmaster gun, and private military communications equipment civilian ferries don't require.
I suspect the MEKO 200 MRV will have the more expensive 75-mm gunmount with only one smaller cheaper crane. Like New Zealand's MRV, air defence will be with Army held weapons. I would expect the same with an Absalon. Not because there isn't room for a dedicated CIWS, I just don't think the Irish navy want one. None of the Irish ships in service have anti-torpedo capability much less anti-air.
I suspect the MEKO 200 MRV will have the more expensive 75-mm gunmount with only one smaller cheaper crane. Like New Zealand's MRV, air defence will be with Army held weapons. I would expect the same with an Absalon. Not because there isn't room for a dedicated CIWS, I just don't think the Irish navy want one. None of the Irish ships in service have anti-torpedo capability much less anti-air.
The Irish Air Corps operated five Dauphins. Two were dedicated to the Naval Service to operate from the Eithne, but only did so on rare occasions. One of the Dauphins crashed with the loss of all crew while on a SAR misssion some years ago. The remaining Dauphins have been withdrawn from service and I understand have been sold. The Air Corps have taken possession of two A139s recently with another 4 on order as replacements for the Dauphins and to increase the transport capibility of the army. I have not heard anything about operating any helos from the Eithne in the future.
"But the Irish ships appear to follow the general trend: Patrollers grow bigger and they venture futher out"
The majority of the fleet is able to cover the EEZ..just we need more to give better coverage and bigger to improve time spent at sea with some blue green capability but frigate type ships, antisubmarine fits, missile fits etc are not part of the program as the cost is prohibitive and the operational requirements do not outline this role..just big PV's..thats all we need.
The majority of the fleet is able to cover the EEZ..just we need more to give better coverage and bigger to improve time spent at sea with some blue green capability but frigate type ships, antisubmarine fits, missile fits etc are not part of the program as the cost is prohibitive and the operational requirements do not outline this role..just big PV's..thats all we need.
Think of the Spanish Armada. Howard & the boys only sank a few ships & (together with the wind) blocked the short way back to Spain. The invasion was clearly not on (well, really it was - but the Spanish didn't know there was hardly a cannonball left in England, & not much gunpowder), & nor was anchoring up on the Belgian coast, so the Spanish decided to go the long way home, all the way round the British Isles. It seemed perfectly rational. Most of their captains thought Atlantic crossings routine (they'd done plenty), & even Pacific crossings no big deal. They knew wild oceans, & their ships were built for heavy weather (hence their slowness compared to the smaller, lighter, English warships, built for close waters).I'm not familiar at all with sea conditions around Ireland, so I'll have to trust you on that one. ...
cheers
But the autumn seas off Scotland & even more, off Ireland, killed them. Over twice as many were wrecked on the Irish coast as lost in battle, & others foundered at sea. The coastal wrecks were either blown ashore in wild weather, or so battered that they deliberately sought the shelter of the coast: it wasn't poor seamanship that led them onto that wild shore all unknowing, it was desperation.
To patrol the west coast of Ireland, all year round, you need to be able to cope with the worst seas you are likely to encounter anywhere. But at least you don't have to worry about either ice or extreme heat.
The pitch and roll of the ship dictated Heli ops , I can't remember the specifics but they were tight to say the least. In fairness all parties concerned realised the constrictions except those who funded the project who saw the nicities of having naval air ops rather than the realities.
The three to one ratio applied, as in to have one operational helo at all times you needed to have two in reserve, unfortunately only two were equipped suitably so the concept was starting from a negative.
As it was to be operated at sea some brilliant mind decided to put three navigational systems on board which required some large cooling systems and also reduced MTOW and reduced fuel capacity...reducing the availability even further.
Now take into mind this was the first full time twin engined high spec machine that the AC had ever operated so everybody from the ground up had to be retrained and nobody had experience with flying machines over a protracted period over water.
Most of the intial training for the ships crew in handling was actually done in the bay Of Biscay with a pre delivery machine. The french were well experieneced so no major problems.
By the time the Navy and the AC were ready to work together the machines were high maintaince hours dependant , limited to two aircraft so operational training again off the Irish Coast was limited.
Take another step. The aircraft were multi tasked with SAR..since changed...MATs duties ..ATCP....and Army support. The NS were bottom of the food chain so as the remaining three machines were out of service the Naval ops fell to bottom of the ladder.
There is only one recorded photograph of all five machines in the air at one time.
Deduction..wrong time....severe budgetary constraints....Loss of skilled personnel to the private sector due to poor conditions in the Services...one ship capable of operating a helo...and finally the wrong aircraft was chosen.
A second ship had been planned as P32 but cancelled,because of massive cost over runs...Eithne doubled in cost during her building...so after very limited use the whole thing died in the early 90's.
The last of the dauphins complete with specialised equipment was sold earlier this year.
The AC meanwhile has "invested" in the AB139 as its medium lift helo with no naval interoperability. We end up with fewer machines than we had 5 years ago with a greater requirement than we ever had for helo ops both with the Army and NS.
Light at the end of the tunnel..I'm afraid not as there is no announcement forthcoming other than they hope to cut steel some time in 2008 with type undecided and with the AC with no forseeable plans to purchase a naval compatible machine.
The three to one ratio applied, as in to have one operational helo at all times you needed to have two in reserve, unfortunately only two were equipped suitably so the concept was starting from a negative.
As it was to be operated at sea some brilliant mind decided to put three navigational systems on board which required some large cooling systems and also reduced MTOW and reduced fuel capacity...reducing the availability even further.
Now take into mind this was the first full time twin engined high spec machine that the AC had ever operated so everybody from the ground up had to be retrained and nobody had experience with flying machines over a protracted period over water.
Most of the intial training for the ships crew in handling was actually done in the bay Of Biscay with a pre delivery machine. The french were well experieneced so no major problems.
By the time the Navy and the AC were ready to work together the machines were high maintaince hours dependant , limited to two aircraft so operational training again off the Irish Coast was limited.
Take another step. The aircraft were multi tasked with SAR..since changed...MATs duties ..ATCP....and Army support. The NS were bottom of the food chain so as the remaining three machines were out of service the Naval ops fell to bottom of the ladder.
There is only one recorded photograph of all five machines in the air at one time.
Deduction..wrong time....severe budgetary constraints....Loss of skilled personnel to the private sector due to poor conditions in the Services...one ship capable of operating a helo...and finally the wrong aircraft was chosen.
A second ship had been planned as P32 but cancelled,because of massive cost over runs...Eithne doubled in cost during her building...so after very limited use the whole thing died in the early 90's.
The last of the dauphins complete with specialised equipment was sold earlier this year.
The AC meanwhile has "invested" in the AB139 as its medium lift helo with no naval interoperability. We end up with fewer machines than we had 5 years ago with a greater requirement than we ever had for helo ops both with the Army and NS.
Light at the end of the tunnel..I'm afraid not as there is no announcement forthcoming other than they hope to cut steel some time in 2008 with type undecided and with the AC with no forseeable plans to purchase a naval compatible machine.
the 180 million put away to purchase the 3 new ships has been delayed due to the down turn in the economy at the moment p21 le emer is well past her life span but it looks like they are going to have to stick with her for another 5 years at leastThe pitch and roll of the ship dictated Heli ops , I can't remember the specifics but they were tight to say the least. In fairness all parties concerned realised the constrictions except those who funded the project who saw the nicities of having naval air ops rather than the realities.
The three to one ratio applied, as in to have one operational helo at all times you needed to have two in reserve, unfortunately only two were equipped suitably so the concept was starting from a negative.
As it was to be operated at sea some brilliant mind decided to put three navigational systems on board which required some large cooling systems and also reduced MTOW and reduced fuel capacity...reducing the availability even further.
Now take into mind this was the first full time twin engined high spec machine that the AC had ever operated so everybody from the ground up had to be retrained and nobody had experience with flying machines over a protracted period over water.
Most of the intial training for the ships crew in handling was actually done in the bay Of Biscay with a pre delivery machine. The french were well experieneced so no major problems.
By the time the Navy and the AC were ready to work together the machines were high maintaince hours dependant , limited to two aircraft so operational training again off the Irish Coast was limited.
Take another step. The aircraft were multi tasked with SAR..since changed...MATs duties ..ATCP....and Army support. The NS were bottom of the food chain so as the remaining three machines were out of service the Naval ops fell to bottom of the ladder.
There is only one recorded photograph of all five machines in the air at one time.
Deduction..wrong time....severe budgetary constraints....Loss of skilled personnel to the private sector due to poor conditions in the Services...one ship capable of operating a helo...and finally the wrong aircraft was chosen.
A second ship had been planned as P32 but cancelled,because of massive cost over runs...Eithne doubled in cost during her building...so after very limited use the whole thing died in the early 90's.
The last of the dauphins complete with specialised equipment was sold earlier this year.
The AC meanwhile has "invested" in the AB139 as its medium lift helo with no naval interoperability. We end up with fewer machines than we had 5 years ago with a greater requirement than we ever had for helo ops both with the Army and NS.
Light at the end of the tunnel..I'm afraid not as there is no announcement forthcoming other than they hope to cut steel some time in 2008 with type undecided and with the AC with no forseeable plans to purchase a naval compatible machine.
The last I read was they are studying the proposals currently for the OPVs, and they will choose two or three ship proposals for a further round of tenders during October this year, with a final decision or order by the end of the year. This information being posted at the Irish government web site in the answer to questions area. The tender process takes a long time. I heard the Irish government had over 20 proposals to choose from. It seems every shipyard in Europe made a proposal.
As far as naval helicopters, I do not think the Irish Naval Service wishes to acquire helicopters, not after the last disaster.Turns out the helicopters cost as much as their OPVs. Its not as if they are using their OPVs as warships with six months deployments, they are using their patrol ships with three weeks deployments, and usually within the 200 mile EEZ. They prefer to operate their helicopters from land bases.
As far as naval helicopters, I do not think the Irish Naval Service wishes to acquire helicopters, not after the last disaster.Turns out the helicopters cost as much as their OPVs. Its not as if they are using their OPVs as warships with six months deployments, they are using their patrol ships with three weeks deployments, and usually within the 200 mile EEZ. They prefer to operate their helicopters from land bases.
The last I read was they are studying the proposals currently for the OPVs, and they will choose two or three ship proposals for a further round of tenders during October this year, with a final decision or order by the end of the year. This information being posted at the Irish government web site in the answer to questions area. The tender process takes a long time. I heard the Irish government had over 20 proposals to choose from. It seems every shipyard in Europe made a proposal.
As far as naval helicopters, I do not think the Irish Naval Service wishes to acquire helicopters, not after the last disaster.Turns out the helicopters cost as much as their OPVs. Its not as if they are using their OPVs as warships with six months deployments, they are using their patrol ships with three weeks deployments, and usually within the 200 mile EEZ. They prefer to operate their helicopters from land bases.
The current process has no provisio toward operating or deploying helos from ships and the ships will not be configured to allow helos to operate . However it would be short sighetd to say that the NS wouldn't have a requirement for helos in the future but would probaly have the prerequiste that these machines would come under naval command and operate independently of the Army and the Aer Corps, this being one of the down falls last time round.
It has also been established in order for air oips to be more efficent larger vessels would be required and a far more suitable type of machine.
Most medium range machines of this type tend to be dedicated to anti submarine ops which the navy currently doesn't have any tasking for.
Troop movements from ships of this size or those envisaged can be handled adequately by RHIBS again removing the need for helo ops from ships.
Given that the Aer Corps them selves have moved into a new era of helo operation , there isn't really much hope of the NS aquiring helos under their own command structure to operate independantly.
Finally there has been no mention of cut backs in Naval Vessel procurement because of the economic down turn and the tender process with all of its options and stated requirements is firmly on track.
The current process has no provisio toward operating or deploying helos from ships and the ships will not be configured to allow helos to operate . However it would be short sighetd to say that the NS wouldn't have a requirement for helos in the future but would probaly have the prerequiste that these machines would come under naval command and operate independently of the Army and the Aer Corps, this being one of the down falls last time round.
It has also been established in order for air oips to be more efficent larger vessels would be required and a far more suitable type of machine.
Most medium range machines of this type tend to be dedicated to anti submarine ops which the navy currently doesn't have any tasking for.
Troop movements from ships of this size or those envisaged can be handled adequately by RHIBS again removing the need for helo ops from ships.
Given that the Aer Corps them selves have moved into a new era of helo operation , there isn't really much hope of the NS aquiring helos under their own command structure to operate independantly.
Finally there has been no mention of cut backs in Naval Vessel procurement because of the economic down turn and the tender process with all of its options and stated requirements is firmly on track.
That is pretty much the situation. The undecided new upcoming EPV, extended patrol ship, with an option for another one, should be a larger ship which will most likely use a helo deck as a vehicle deck, to help sea lift the army. The army might want to carry a helo for medical evacuations abroad during a UN peacekeeping mission. That is about the lone exception I see with the Irish forces and with the usage of helicopters aboard naval service ships. Any helicopter shipped abroad would of course be a air corps helicopter, most likely an Augusta Bell 139.
Problem with this are the Aer corps are now further away from maritime helo ops than they ever have been.
the Air support or medium lift capability is almost totally dedicated to army Co-Op rather than any naval support role even if it does involve army uses.
The AB139 in use has no naval specific gear nor is there an option to acquire any for now.
The thought behind any EPV having helo capacity is logical but again that is solely dependant on the EPV being purchased.
Current informed opinion would see an option for a third OPV as opposed to an EPV with troop carrying capability.
The MRV concept in a class that Ireland could afford has been trashed by the New Zealand experience at attempst at a low Cost EPV.
Given the concept was based around NS short comings in deploying credible numbers of troops overseas and the current mission being moved by comercial shipping this will probably be put on hold given the mission change.
This in turn would frustrate any efforts to re live the helo at sea experience.
The increase in sea states would put any such vessel in similar situations as experienced twenty odd years ago with the Eithne and SA365 experience.
Until the small ship limited helo mentality has expired and it is realised to operate heos in the north atlantic you need more substantial vessels Ireland will stand still although it must be said that both interested parties the NS and AC are well aware of this and it is only those who don't realise the fallacy of trying it again who keep the hope alive.
The maritime coverage is well covered by the current coast guard set up and an expansion of this along with improved larger OPVs will increase the capacity to police our coast line and territorial waters.
the Air support or medium lift capability is almost totally dedicated to army Co-Op rather than any naval support role even if it does involve army uses.
The AB139 in use has no naval specific gear nor is there an option to acquire any for now.
The thought behind any EPV having helo capacity is logical but again that is solely dependant on the EPV being purchased.
Current informed opinion would see an option for a third OPV as opposed to an EPV with troop carrying capability.
The MRV concept in a class that Ireland could afford has been trashed by the New Zealand experience at attempst at a low Cost EPV.
Given the concept was based around NS short comings in deploying credible numbers of troops overseas and the current mission being moved by comercial shipping this will probably be put on hold given the mission change.
This in turn would frustrate any efforts to re live the helo at sea experience.
The increase in sea states would put any such vessel in similar situations as experienced twenty odd years ago with the Eithne and SA365 experience.
Until the small ship limited helo mentality has expired and it is realised to operate heos in the north atlantic you need more substantial vessels Ireland will stand still although it must be said that both interested parties the NS and AC are well aware of this and it is only those who don't realise the fallacy of trying it again who keep the hope alive.
The maritime coverage is well covered by the current coast guard set up and an expansion of this along with improved larger OPVs will increase the capacity to police our coast line and territorial waters.
Last edited:
The Irish are alarmed about the reduction of the Royal Navy, but yet, seem unable to broaden the role or size of their own navy. Even the US Coast Guard has a wider range of roles to fulfill than the Irish naval service.
The US Coast Guard maintains the US buoys, something the Irish naval service does not.
While New Zealand's attempt to acquire a faultless MRV may have been unsuccessful, remedies will be provided.
The US Coast Guard maintains the US buoys, something the Irish naval service does not.
While New Zealand's attempt to acquire a faultless MRV may have been unsuccessful, remedies will be provided.
The INS has no stated policy on the reduction of the RN neither does it directly effect or impact on any operations we independantly carry out.
The NS role is as varied as can be expected from ships that are built with the task of Patrol duties for prolonged periods.
The Buoys and Lights remained the remit of the UK government under the Auspices of Irish lights but in recent years has come under the control of the department of the marine who have their own tender Grainuaile which is a purposely built lights tender.
Ocean survey vessel is also owned by the Department rather than . For 900 and 8 ships to patrol 132,000 square miles of sea and provide other services we do fine but need to start replacing ships that are now in exces of 30 years old.
The NS role is as varied as can be expected from ships that are built with the task of Patrol duties for prolonged periods.
The Buoys and Lights remained the remit of the UK government under the Auspices of Irish lights but in recent years has come under the control of the department of the marine who have their own tender Grainuaile which is a purposely built lights tender.
Ocean survey vessel is also owned by the Department rather than . For 900 and 8 ships to patrol 132,000 square miles of sea and provide other services we do fine but need to start replacing ships that are now in exces of 30 years old.
The current process has no provisio toward operating or deploying helos from ships and the ships will not be configured to allow helos to operate . However it would be short sighetd to say that the NS wouldn't have a requirement for helos in the future but would probaly have the prerequiste that these machines would come under naval command and operate independently of the Army and the Aer Corps, this being one of the down falls last time round.
It has also been established in order for air oips to be more efficent larger vessels would be required and a far more suitable type of machine.
Most medium range machines of this type tend to be dedicated to anti submarine ops which the navy currently doesn't have any tasking for.
Troop movements from ships of this size or those envisaged can be handled adequately by RHIBS again removing the need for helo ops from ships.
Given that the Aer Corps them selves have moved into a new era of helo operation , there isn't really much hope of the NS aquiring helos under their own command structure to operate independantly.
Finally there has been no mention of cut backs in Naval Vessel procurement because of the economic down turn and the tender process with all of its options and stated requirements is firmly on track.
As far as all departments are concerned there will be no large payouts, quotes from the "irish times" 2 weeks ago and also a statement claiming that the money to purchase new ships for the irish navy is put on hold until at least next year, this comment was supposed to have come from the defence dept?
Five of the eight Irish OPVs will soon or have already reached their payoff date after 30 years of service. And the sixth OPV a few years later. Except for the two Roisins built by Appledore, the rest of the fleet is becoming old. Bids from shipyards have reached the government for the OPV replacements, the two possible EPVs bid dates are approaching.
By the time these five, hopefully six ships are built, much of the fleet they will be replacing will have more than 30 years old. Some of these ships are in poor condition and should be struck today. It appears the government is attempting to get a few extra years out of each ship, whether or not they are in good condition.
Otherwise, we should hear very soon which ships they will acquire. In my opinion the idea time for acquisition was last year.
By the time these five, hopefully six ships are built, much of the fleet they will be replacing will have more than 30 years old. Some of these ships are in poor condition and should be struck today. It appears the government is attempting to get a few extra years out of each ship, whether or not they are in good condition.
Otherwise, we should hear very soon which ships they will acquire. In my opinion the idea time for acquisition was last year.
Four Vessels, so only half their fleet. The ex-RN Peacocks date from the mid-80's, so are in their early 20's age wise. But I agree it is going to leave them in a squeeze, even if not as bad as the early 70's.
this is true, the p21 opv is coming up on 31 years which is past its use by date and was due to be decommisioned 2 years ago which puts the rest of the opv replacement back also, i think it will be a case of buy some cheap ships from some other navy once again with what little funds are there which is only a temporary solution to a rapidly growing problem?