Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  76
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 115
  1. #1
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    445
    Post Thanks / Like

    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. Dislikes hptmurphy disliked this post
  3. #2
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  4. Thanks boy in blue thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #3
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    445
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  6. Likes ibenji liked this post
  7. #4
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 13th November 2014 at 16:18.
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  8. Thanks pym, DeV, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Shaqra, Flamingo, The real Jack liked this post
  9. #5
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    Prior to WW1, the british Government spent 50% of its entire budget on the Royal Navy.

  10. Thanks ropebag thanked for this post
    Likes Pure Hover liked this post
  11. #6
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    445
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 13th November 2014 at 17:42. Reason: spelling error

  12. Likes Flamingo, Pure Hover liked this post
  13. #7
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    London/Amsterdam/Kildare
    Posts
    202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  14. #8
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    445
    Post Thanks / Like
    or spending 24 billion on welfare

  15. #9
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Co Cork
    Posts
    88
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  16. #10
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  17. Likes Turkey liked this post
  18. #11
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  19. #12
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  20. Likes boy in blue, sofa liked this post
  21. #13
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  22. #14
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    852
    Post Thanks / Like

    Naval Fleet Size

    Quote 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.

  23. Likes Graylion liked this post
  24. #15
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 3rd April 2017 at 10:28.

  25. Likes Graylion liked this post
  26. #16
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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??
    foreign aid is money well spent on security

  27. #17
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ibenji View Post
    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
    I agree with the result but not the reasoning. Ireland by itself canno deter anybody or anything. Also, threats to Ireland's security and interests do not com ein the shape of a threat of invasion but for instance in the shape of threats to the EU's stability. Article 42 TEU still applies. So Ireland would be well advised to work on integrating with EU forces and contributing. Given the pacifist mindset in this country I would suggest focusing on force multipliers like Sparky's AOR/LSS. Other options are extending our ISTAR capablity into the serious high tech realm.

  28. #18
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,084
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Mate your concept of how Defence spending is viewed in Ireland needs to take a long, long look. Ignore all the rest ; no votes in Defence and its an FG govt who havent given a fk about Defence Spending as long as I've been in the Defence Forces ( 31 years now ) .

    You would not believe how hard it is to find the funding for ships in the current funding envelope
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  29. #19
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    Mate your concept of how Defence spending is viewed in Ireland needs to take a long, long look. Ignore all the rest ; no votes in Defence and its an FG govt who havent given a fk about Defence Spending as long as I've been in the Defence Forces ( 31 years now ) .

    You would not believe how hard it is to find the funding for ships in the current funding envelope
    Is it really just FG that you could give the same label to?

  30. #20
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,084
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fair point, FF are not great either to be fair but long term they are a little better for Defence. ( if FG said 0.2% FF would be 0.5% its that kind of difference)

    That said I can't see FF advocating the NATO 2% of GDP either.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  31. #21
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look, I've never said there are votes to be gained by spending on defence. Otherwise they'd have been lost with the cuts. I just maintain that there are no votes to be lost by doing it. Or have I missed protest marches and tax boycotts over the fourth OPV.

    We have an electorate and a political class that are apathetic and ignorant, lack of spending is inertia and cuts in defence are a soft option.
    Last edited by expat01; 3rd April 2017 at 15:16.

  32. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  33. #22
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Look, I've never said there are votes to be gained by spending on defence. Otherwise they'd have been lost with the cuts. I just maintain that there are no votes to be lost by doing it. Or have I missed protest marches and tax boycotts over the fourth OPV.

    We have an electorate and a political class that are apathetic and ignorant, lack of spending is inertia and cuts in defence are a soft option.
    We haven't seen complaints because it's 60 odd million and even for our budgets that's not huge, if however we started pushing up to 1% even, how quickly would there be protests. I mean hell just today there was yer man on 4FM going on about why we even need/have a DF and why we need to bring it up to strength (I turned off before all his talking heads rang in), hell he seemed outraged that the recruitment campaign had cost 85K apparently...

  34. #23
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    We've been at 1% and more before the crash. Don't remember much fuss or even notice then. The flip side of apathy. Nobody really notices or cares. And most Irish don't resent DF spending.
    Last edited by expat01; 3rd April 2017 at 16:35.

  35. #24
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    We've been at 1% and more before the crash. Don't remember much fuss or even notice then. The flip side of apathy. Nobody really notices or cares. And most Irish don't resent DF spending.
    Just a quick look on the net and we dropped below 1% back in '96, which I presume was in relation to higher troop numbers due to the North at the time of the crash we were about .6% (which might have been more due to the size of the economy). And while people didn't notice then, I think you are misjudging things now. Are you seriously suggesting that there wouldn't be "What aboutism" if we started moving that back up to 1% from what it is now instead of "X/Y/Z" of the other areas of national spending? I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending more, but I think if we aren't even willing to pay for Water, what's the chance of paying for defence.

  36. #25
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Just a quick look on the net and we dropped below 1% back in '96, which I presume was in relation to higher troop numbers due to the North at the time of the crash we were about .6% (which might have been more due to the size of the economy). And while people didn't notice then, I think you are misjudging things now. Are you seriously suggesting that there wouldn't be "What aboutism" if we started moving that back up to 1% from what it is now instead of "X/Y/Z" of the other areas of national spending? I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending more, but I think if we aren't even willing to pay for Water, what's the chance of paying for defence.
    I think your reference to people not wanting to pay for water is misleading in regard to defence. We pay through our motor tax and our general taxation already for water. We should not have to pay twice. That said I think that the defence budget should be increased to the necessary level in order to provide the level of service at we need. The rescue helicopter contract alone is 500 million over ten years. Imagine what the aer core could have done with that money

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •