Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how big/small should the NS be?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • how big/small should the NS be?

    Will someone from the navel service tell me
    How many navel ships we need ,to secure our waters,
    are we under strength ? we seem to have a very small navy

  • #2
    Originally posted by boy in blue View Post
    Will someone from the navel service tell me
    How many navel ships we need ,to secure our waters,
    are we under strength ? we seem to have a very small navy
    Could do with another 8 or so ships to add to our small naval service. The approach I would take is more is better. Also need to take into account is that half of the ships are approaching / past the use by date. Very small navy indeed but great work done by all.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think its time for the government to start being serious and allot a certain amount of GDP for defense,if we are to be taken seriously as a modern country,
      We are an island for feck sake we need to pump resources into our navy,and have it properly equipped

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by boy in blue View Post
        I think its time for the government to start being serious and allot a certain amount of GDP for defense,if we are to be taken seriously as a modern country,
        We are an island for feck sake we need to pump resources into our navy,and have it properly equipped
        Now, my young grasshopper, lets put some reality on your request.
        (btw, I agree with the sentiment of your post)

        At present, we spend around 0.55% GDP on defence (about a quarter of that is used to pay pensions)
        Lets say that the government decided in the morning that it should really be spending 0.8%

        The extra 0.25% of GPD equates to around €400m.
        Now we don't want to cut any schools or hospitals to pay for this so,
        lets spread this out as a household charge across the roughly 1658k households in Ireland.
        You would be expecting each home to pay a "defence forces charge" of €240 to fund the increase.
        Good luck trying to sell that one to the politicians when people are up in arms about paying that for an essential like water.
        Last edited by Archimedes; 13 November 2014, 17:18.
        Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

        Comment


        • #5
          Prior to WW1, the british Government spent 50% of its entire budget on the Royal Navy.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Archimedes View Post
            Now, my young grasshopper, lets put some reality on your request.
            (btw, I agree with the sentiment of your post)

            At present, we spend around 0.55% GDP on defence (about a quarter of that is used to pay pensions)
            Lets say that the government decided in the morning that it should really be spending 0.8%

            The extra 0.25% of GPD equates to around €400m.
            Now we don't want to cut any schools or hospitals to pay for this so,
            lets spread this out as a household charge across the roughly 1658k households in Ireland.
            You would be expecting each home to pay a "defence forces charge" of €240 to fund the increase.
            Good luck trying to sell that one to the politicians when people are up in arms about paying that for an essential like water.
            Yet we can still give 640 million in foreign aid to equip African countries armed services,how do they sell this to the people??
            Last edited by boy in blue; 13 November 2014, 18:42. Reason: spelling error

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
              Prior to WW1, the british Government spent 50% of its entire budget on the Royal Navy.
              Yes but life expectancy was in the 50's and a lot less than that in the colonies that were providing the British Govt with the wherewithal to fund the ship building.
              “The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards.”
              ― Thucydides

              Comment


              • #8
                or spending 24 billion on welfare

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                  Prior to WW1, the british Government spent 50% of its entire budget on the Royal Navy.
                  Well unfortunately we don't have a vast colonies in the four corners of the earth to pay for our military like the British did, plus the governments back then weren't crippled by the costs of being nanny states.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by boy in blue View Post
                    Yet we can still give 640 million in foreign aid to equip African countries armed services,how do they sell this to the people??
                    Yes but you have to realize, there is a pityfull amount left to buy the arms after the foreign aid corporations take there cut out of it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In this era of cost/returns efficiencies it would be difficult to demonstate what financial benefit would accrue to the State from having an enlarged NS.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by danno View Post
                        In this era of cost/returns efficiencies it would be difficult to demonstate what financial benefit would accrue to the State from having an enlarged NS.
                        From my point of view, cost / return efficiencies should not really come into it. Some services are too critical and I believe that a sufficient deterrent is required and hence a larger navy. When you compare that the government gets 3 euro return to every one spent in the construction of roads in Ireland but yet we still suffer from a decaying regional / local road network etc. Just because something is cost efficient does not tend to make Irish Government react

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A long, long time ago it was recommended that we should have s fleet of 8 ships. This was so we had the minimum required to meet our various treaty commitments especially fishery protection. But that was the minimum. Sinne the we have expanded our sea area by 100%. Would mean we now need 16 ships although we have no legal obligations for fishery protection in the new area.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Naval Fleet Size

                            Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            A long, long time ago it was recommended that we should have s fleet of 8 ships. This was so we had the minimum required to meet our various treaty commitments especially fishery protection. But that was the minimum. Sinne the we have expanded our sea area by 100%. Would mean we now need 16 ships although we have no legal obligations for fishery protection in the new area.
                            Maintaining Fleet size , while reducing end - of - service tonnage , is fiscally challenging , requiring skilled staff planning. Our nearest neighbour is in the throes of doing that, with much juggling, but widening the window of the ability vacuum all the time , with a promise of Cake tomorrow.
                            At sea it is reckoned that assets are maintained in your AOP to a factor of three. You need three balanced crews for each ship type, and three ships for every ship maintained on deployment.

                            What your ships are to do is both threat based and meeting Home duties , including emergencies , and being good to go to meet those obligations. Ships as designed , including all systems once installed , should be maintained on front line ability, in order to carry out assigned duties. Injuring ships by removing , difficult to maintain systems, is akin to chopping off limbs , leaving mostly only an ability to float and go.
                            In the case of an MRV having the ability to land troops, it would be ideal that those troops were from a Marine background and comfortable aboard ships. Our experience of part time non Naval crew is that ships are the last place they want to be. How this is to be achieved is a matter for the planners.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My mantra continues.. politicians don't need to sell defense spending, it is a myth that anyone other than a few lefty tofu knitters would object and, on the contrary, there is much press coverage of our defense deficiencies.
                              Whether any of that goes anywhere in the next few years is for speculation.
                              But if the navy gets much bigger than 9 vessels it will have become a sufficiently large part of the DF that the army will suffer unless overall establishment increases. If NS establishment gets much over 2000 there will need to be serious consideration to expanded base and training facilities. I think it really needs to be a separate service.
                              But I like Ancientmariner's sneaky suggestion of what amounts to a company or battalion of marines.
                              Last edited by expat01; 3 April 2017, 11:28.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X