PDA

View Full Version : Privatisation of the NS?



Sarsfield
24th November 2004, 01:46
Just spent a while reading alot of the posts. Conclusion : either everyone is on magic mushrooms or we are talking about a different navy.

Bottomline---- all we will ever have will be 8 patrol ships. When Orla, Ciara and Eithne go to the Spanish scrap merchants, we will only be operating Lloyds Register ships as no warships [actual naval vessels capable of naval actions ] will ever be provided by the gladhanders feeding off their begging bowls from EU.

So instead of everyone rambling on like Father Dougal, I propose to transfer the alleged 'navy' to the Department of Marine etc which can subcontract its operational running to the likes of DML.

The money saved can then be used to properly equip the army for the first time since its creation.

After all who needs a navy? The way you lot go on, you would think we lived on an island!!!! Isn't that right Ted????

FMolloy
24th November 2004, 02:14
You'd get a better response if you didn't insult the rest of the board members.

Goldie fish
24th November 2004, 03:08
Is it not yourself sarsfield that promoted the aquisition of Frigates,destroyers etc? Are you being Ironic?
Do you have an opinion?

Sarsfield
26th November 2004, 03:33
Yes I was been ironic. Just pure frustration that it would appear that no politician seems to grasp the legal necessity to operate and properly equip / train the defence forces. This is required under international law. Ireland would require 4 frigates, 8 multirole opvs [in other words corvettes ], 4 mcm vessels, 1 fleet replenishment vessel and a vessel capable of supporting a UN BATTALION in the field. This would require substantial investment over the next 10 years. Naval Reserve should also be upgraded with relevant equipment such as the Blohm & Voss 38m Fast Patrol Craft.

The only way we can constructively help the NS is to begin a properly worded standard letter mailed to every single TD.

One thing that the Celtic Tiger has changed is peoples refusal to accept second rate services and infrastructure, so why should they accept a badly equipped fishery protection service which the politicians call a navy. :mad:

FMolloy
26th November 2004, 03:39
Newsflash: The government don't poke around this site too often, so getting frustrated at us won't get you anywhere. If you want to discuss something do it in a civil manner.

hptmurphy
26th November 2004, 05:14
Kills me as it does i have to agree with sarsfield...in that the powers that be have only ever paid lip service to the notion of ever possessing a full blown navy. But in saying that people must remember that all we have is a naval Service which in fact is notionally and on paper a branch of the Army and all descisions regarding the funding and operation of this service are made at higher level with in the army.

The only time the service had a real say in this was when Commodore Moloney was assistant chief of staff but this was a missed oppertunity.

The scottish effictively operate a similar FP role to the Naval service at fraction of the cost but then again they also have the RN on close call. If we were in fact to remove the NS from the control of the army its military role would dissappear and the force itself would never be replaced as happened in the 1920s.

No amount of letter writing would ever alter the fact that the NS will never be what it should be.
There is no point in continually bemoaning the facts of what the service is and living in the fantasy of what it could be is an utter sham.

The Army gets primary funding because of the high profile of its overseas contribution..I am not debating this ...it is a fact. The AC is almost a private air taxi service with no credible role in the DF ..without the proper equipment.

the naval serice is a token force but please stop belittling what the people who operate this force do. It is not their fault that the service is under funded and at least the service has gained enough credence that it may never be depleted to the condition it was in in 1970.

Credible soloutions are always welcome but dreaming of frigates, corvettes and MCM vessels are a waste of time.
If at this point in time anybody realistically believes that we can afford to operate these hypothetical forces please tell me why the dutch ...the...Belgians and the UK are all streamling tehir naval forces. Truth is nobody can afford to operate large scale navies any more and the manpower required is simply not available..

In 1980 the defence forces under took to upscale to 15,900 from 13,370 whn infact the whole period of the eighties recruitemnt was stagnant. If the resources had been poued into the DF and the NS in particular that were spent on say Air Lingus we would probably be in a position to argue the cases for the upgrades to the desired ships today but this didn't happen and as a result the NS is at its current level.

There has been more than one occassion in the recent history of the state that it was under consideration to disband the service....if privatisation of certain roles came under scrutiny...again in the future I firmly believe that this option would be considered again. Be careful of what you wish for as you just might get it. :mad:

Silver
26th November 2004, 06:03
hpt,

As an interested observer, I would be interested to know what future you forsee for the NS ?

E.g.:-
- Will it stay at an 8-ship level ?
- Will a troop transport ship will replace Eithne ? etc. etc.

What would you see as a realistic expansion of the NS ?


You say that letter writing is pointless, which is probably the case, so .....

What would it take to change politicians view of the NS ?

(or is it MORE important to change 'joe publics' view first ?)


Regards,
Silver.

hptmurphy
26th November 2004, 07:19
to be thruth ful and honest at this time Ican't answer that question as I am very tired and ned to do some more associsted reading .give me a couple of days and I will put forward my realistic vision of the nvy backed up with some historical eveidence.

Paul

Aidan
26th November 2004, 18:41
legal necessity to operate and properly equip / train the defence forces. This is required under international law

Where?

JAG
26th November 2004, 19:42
Quote:
"legal necessity to operate and properly equip / train the defence forces. This is required under international law"

At the risk of upsetting people and sounding like a broken record INTERNATIONAL LAW DOES NOT EXIST. It is a figment, imaginary, made up, a lie, bullshit, not true, a fabrication, a story,an aspiration, a dream, an idea, an alternative reality, an expression, a phrase, a misquote, misrepresented, LOAD OF CRAP.

There are many, many arguments for properly trained, equipped, manned & funded all arms defence forces. International law is not one, because it does not exist.

hptmurphy
27th November 2004, 00:11
but i thought under the terms of declared neutrality under the hague or some such we or other nations were obliged to be in a position to defend their neutral stance ..ie have a force capable of at least making a token effort to resist those intending to defy neutrality??

Alf
27th November 2004, 06:23
The power of the Defence Forces to defend the state does not lie in the hands of the soldiers on the ground, but their mothers who would pester any invading army until they handed the place back to us. I'm sure there's some treaty or other that covers this, and if there isn't I'm sure the government would be more than happy to sign us up to it to avoid any of that actual messy, vote losing fighting.

Cynicism, the lowest form of wit? Well, just so long as it's a form of wit I'll be happy...

FMolloy
28th November 2004, 02:10
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, not cynicism.

Sarsfield
28th November 2004, 21:48
The Hague and Geneva Conventions state clearly that any sovereign state that declares itself militarily neutral or independent of military alliances must provide the means to safeguard that stated neutrality. No aggressor is to be able to utilise the said neutrality by air, land or sea; the state must be able to provide credible deterence. Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland have adhered to this. Needless to say the Republic of Ireland has failed woefully in this regard, despite signing all relevant treaties and conventions.

I had no intention to insult fellow board users in my original post. However, it seems futile for like minded people to constantly argue and debate the future of the NS. I strongly believe that we should initiate a letter writing campaign to both the press and politicians to raise the pressing issues facing the NS. NS personnel are of a high quality and dedicated to doing their jobs in a very arduous environment but both politicans and the majority of the media do little to help.

'We want eight and we won't wait' should be the cry. RACO has already stated in its report that the NS would require significantly more platforms to effectively carry out their required duties than this but faced with the governments decision to stick with eight we should be calling for those platforms to be large, capable,multipurpose warships. :tri:

Alf
29th November 2004, 05:35
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, not cynicism.
Ahh, you are correct, I do apologise.

Goldie fish
29th November 2004, 05:46
Ahh, you are correct, I do apologise.

Enough of the shite talk please gentlemen. :mad: Keep it on topic.

Aidan
29th November 2004, 19:07
provide credible deterence

Define credible deterrence? Deterrence against a Kirov class cruiser, or a trawler with 7 tonnes of illegal weapons aboard? Without a clear definition, the term is meaningless, which is presciely the way it was meant to be. See Jags post.

super slug
29th November 2004, 20:40
who needs a naval service? the naval service do the most out of all the defence forces. Who needs an army is more like it.If there's anything important that needs doing the Rangers just handle it, and with Willie O'Dea saying that he wants an extra 100 rangers trained as soon as possible, this will expand there operational capability even further.

ias
29th November 2004, 20:50
Where do you propose we get all these Rangers without an army?

IAS
ps Sorry to continue off-topic

SPOOKY
29th November 2004, 23:48
PSST!

careful IAS someone at the top might hear you!

You had to ask.........
http://www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au/articles/52/0c01e952.asp
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1085/topstories/story01.htm
http://www.careerone.com.au/newsviews/story/0,8523,10248312-22565,00.html
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/careers_explorer/Army514.html
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/default.asp?initMedia=1&media=flash&bounceBack=/default.asp&p=170
http://www.ausspecialforces.com/

Seesm to work for the Aussies in Combat (a la IRAQ)
why not here?
:tongue:

Sarsfield
4th December 2004, 03:46
Define credible deterence? I already did! It is the ability of a neutral state to deny its territory either by land, sea or air to any or both aggressors. Claiming air dominance upto 10,000 feet with 24 second hand Bofors, 9 RBS-70 SAM and 8 PC-9 however doesn't constitute a credible deterent.

Stopping trawlers,whatever their cargo, is a secondary tasking. The primary role of any navy is its contribution to national defence. As for Kirov cruisers, the Swedes and Finns didn't bend over and take it up the a--; nor did they shite talk that they were poor wee states and no-one would attack them. Rather they invested in an effective minelaying force combined with FAC / Corvettes armed with SSM.
THEY TOOK THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS SERIOUSLY.

Aidan
6th December 2004, 18:16
I already did! It is the ability of a neutral state to deny its territory either by land, sea or air to any or both aggressors

Nope. You gave us one of a multitude of possible definitions. Face it, there is no legally binding piece of international law that sets out a minimum level of force that maritime nations should have at their disposal. One simple reason for this is that it would be completely and totally impossible to enforce.

Secondly, you gave us one potential outfitting for the NS near the start of the thread. And while it would be a great deal more surviveable than the current NS, wouldn't even be a speedbump for many of the naval force that regularly operate in the North Atlantic. Like I said, credible defence against what?

hptmurphy
6th December 2004, 18:56
Sarsfield....there is nobody who has served in the NS Army oir Air Corps who is not accutely aware of what our requiremnets militarily are....and then on the other hand there is nobody who has a punture due to a pothole realises what the stae is prepared to spend on basic reqiurements of the nation.

the state has no history of spending massive amounts of money on defence and successive governments have hidden behind the neutrality banner to prove this.

we have no natural enemies ..we haven't been attacked since the 12th century ...we are not in a postion to declare war any one so why maintain a force that is more capabable of merely exercising its troops in a overseas role that is supported by a greater force. We don't have the reqiurement for ASW platforms or FLS so why would the government even entertain such illusions ....when the country dosen't even have a capable road system.

Dream on my son ...dream on!

Sarsfield
7th December 2004, 00:48
No-one has attacked us since the 12th Century? Really so what was the Easter Rising for? Where we not under occupation for near 800 years?

Secondly, RACO report to government about the future requirements that must be considered for the NS future clearly and effectively made the case for 15 ocean capable vessels equipped to warship standards and capable of multi-tasking.

Thirdly, I am sickened by the usual palaver of [1] we're too poor or[2] we have to fix the roads.

Fourthly, would all the geniuses that foresee no danger to Ireland over the next 20 years please advise what crystal ball they're using? This would be most helpful as all the European countries currently spending billions on defence would be able to lay off all service personnel and put the money into infrastructure [from railways to broadband]!!!!

The USA and Spanish governments have a desperate need for this magical crystal ball as no-one in their right mind could have predicted that they would be attacked. With the massive numbers employed by US companies from the IFSC to Galway and from Cork to Limerick we are the soft 51st. I am actually amazed that no-one has publicly commented on what is this states complete lack of defence! [ in the media, Brussels etc]Of course, the fact that the RAF patrols our skies and that US / UK intelligence told the NS that a trawler with 7 tonnes of weapons was on its way might explain this. Janes Fighting Ships editor did however compare Irelands naval and air coverage as 'akin to a colander'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally, are we an independent sovereign state abiding by international law?
Or, are we little kids playing adults? Someone needs to make up their mind!!!!

If a country as small as New Zealand with only 2.5m people and considerably poorer than RoI can declare its aim to have the 'worlds best small navy' why can't we?

Ireland appears to have no shame in grovelling to the EU for handouts but won't put its own money where its responsibilities lie.

Question to those who believe that we will never be attacked. What is the point of having 3 services which can't do what theyr'e supposed to? Why not take the 1 billion Euros and spend it on 'infrastructure' instead? Why do other small nations believe in the need to operate capable armed forces? Why do New Zealand, Slovenia, Lithuania spend money on defence ?
If Ireland relies on the UK and NATO to defend it then why does Canada and Mexico not just rely on the US?

As an independent nation [ after 800 years of occupation] do we not have a sense of moral responsibility to ourselves and our European partners? Have we no moral fibre or sense of shame? Have we no belief in our own capabilites? No aura of patriotism?

Our service men and women deserve a hell of lot more!!!!!! :tri: :mad:

FMolloy
7th December 2004, 00:52
So why are you preaching to the choir?

Go off and annoy the press or the politicans about it, rather than ranting on at us.

hptmurphy
7th December 2004, 01:41
read what you see ...we were invaded by the Normnas and up to 1920 there was a seris of occupations ....nothing to do with the fact we were subject to bristish rule all that time and they provided the naval cover required.

We have no history of naval power and as result only lip service is paid to the basic requirement. We have no need for such forces in the eyes of the purse string holders......nothing will change that.
At the risk of repeating my self you and we are aware of the requiremnets of a modern naval force but this country will never have a powerful naval force.

If you are so empowered as you claim to be why is every other force in Europe reducing its defence spending ..especially on naval forces....and you expect us to becry the fact we have a token force......you are not making any sense.

No the country is not too poor but the people of the country will not see their money spent on military exapansionism...will somebody please burn this muppets copy of Dark Rose...and keep him off the happy smarties

If you practise what you preach with in the pages of defence journalism ....welll thats me finished with Mr thomas Janes publications.

Sarsfield
7th December 2004, 02:33
Firstly, Mingi man reread my first thread regards preaching to the choir. I do not rant---ok. This thread was started because I see a constant reference to the future of the NS, what new ships it will get etc. Does anyone outside of this forum care was the implied question!!!!!

As the choir appears to sing from the same hymn sheet why don't we constructively educate the politicians and media by email/ letters to raise the profile of the NS.

Secondly, hptMurphy, I accept your initial criticism. Empowered? Sorry don't get it!!!! Are we going back to slagging people on the board because they may have an alternate viewpoint---- smarties-----?

Yes, the UK, Holland and Belgium have all slaughtered their navies in terms of destroyers / frigates but France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey have all increased their naval budgets. Even the UK is in the midst of the biggest revitalisation of its expeditionary warfare capacity since the 60s. Poland under its obligations to NATO is/ has acquired 2 Perry Class Frigates, 6 Meko missile corvettes and 6 ex Norwegian Kobben submarines.

Even tiny Lithuania with no history of naval power is investing and expanding its fleet.

Are you saying HPT Murphy that we don't need a navy or that the Irish people as a whole don't believe we need a navy? This takes us full circle to my initial thread!!!!!!

I am not nor never have criticised the NS personnel who do an admirable job with little resources in one of the worst operating environments in the world.

What I am putting forward for discussion is the fact that we are stuck with politicians who do not realise the importance of a Navy to an island nation and are sticking to 8 ships. As it stands, the only difference between the NS and a coastguard is the colour of the paint!

What I am putting forward for discussion is if we are unable to give the NS the funding required would it not be better to call a spade a spade and rename the NS as the Irish Coastguard and have it funded from the Dept of Marine? The money saved could then be spent on major equipment items for the Army and Air Corps.

Before everyone goes nuts, my own personal view is for the NS and AC to be made equal to the Army and properly funded. Not to the tune of billions of euros, but rather an allocation of 50 million euro PA to each part of the PDF purely to acquire necessary equipment for the next 10 years.

I'm now going back to my cave with that book and smarties! Incoming!!!!!

FMolloy
7th December 2004, 03:22
Firstly, Mingi man reread my first thread regards preaching to the choir. I do not rant---ok. This thread was started because I see a constant reference to the future of the NS, what new ships it will get etc. Does anyone outside of this forum care was the implied question!!!!

I thought the answer to the question was obvious: no they don't.



As the choir appears to sing from the same hymn sheet why don't we constructively educate the politicians and media by email/ letters to raise the profile of the NS.

You're welcome to do so yourself, but I doubt many others here will join you. The political parties, the mainstream press & the voting public do not care about defence, so unless you're going to write the most convincing letter ever & send it to the entire population you're wasting your time.



Yes, the UK, Holland and Belgium have all slaughtered their navies in terms of destroyers / frigates but France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey have all increased their naval budgets. Even the UK is in the midst of the biggest revitalisation of its expeditionary warfare capacity since the 60s. Poland under its obligations to NATO is/ has acquired 2 Perry Class Frigates, 6 Meko missile corvettes and 6 ex Norwegian Kobben submarines.

Even tiny Lithuania with no history of naval power is investing and expanding its fleet.

Are you saying HPT Murphy that we don't need a navy or that the Irish people as a whole don't believe we need a navy? This takes us full circle to my initial thread!!!!!!

Poland & Lithuania are in NATO & are expected to pull their weight. Ireland is a neutral country which has never been attacked and which surrounded by friendly nations. Like I said you'd better be able to write one hell of a letter if you're to convince the nation of the need for a proper navy. The 'look what the other countries are buying' argument won't work either.



What I am putting forward for discussion is the fact that we are stuck with politicians who do not realise the importance of a Navy to an island nation and are sticking to 8 ships. As it stands, the only difference between the NS and a coastguard is the colour of the paint!

What's the discussion? We all know this.



What I am putting forward for discussion is if we are unable to give the NS the funding required would it not be better to call a spade a spade and rename the NS as the Irish Coastguard and have it funded from the Dept of Marine? The money saved could then be spent on major equipment items for the Army and Air Corps.

Then do so without bleating on about politicians, 1916, international law et al.

hptmurphy
8th December 2004, 05:03
the empowered is a reference to sombody who works with janes publications should be aware of the embrgo put on military spending until social issues are sorted. we need hospitals ..schools and univresities long before we need afully operational NS. When you sign the current NS over to the coast guard who will perform the navavl roles.

We have come a long way in the deveopment of our forces but their deveolpment is hindered by the noral obligation to improve the lot of the undereducated an ill population before we can bee see to waste vast amouts of money on military projects.
At leaset in sociable devlopment there is a tangible result but in the case of massive defence spening this would cause hard ship to the lower echelons of the population of the country,

If we were to buy three decomissioned broadsword Frigates in the morning the total complemnet to crew threm would wipe out the whole mnapoer of the NS Smaller vessels are the way to go for crewing levels but they must not bite greatly into defence spenidind and leave the army waiting for something that maybe a crucial to them..

If the army wage bill were to removed from the procurement budget there would be far more money to go around,Afterall it is army pay and pensions that tie down60% of the actual budget