Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  76
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 115
  1. #26
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ibenji View Post
    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
    Not going to bother derailing the thread, suffice to say I disagree with you. As to spending on defence, it's not going to happen, none of the parties could give a monkies about it and are under no inducement to do so, and any major spending (and by that I mean moving the capital budget into the 100's of millions and sustaining it for an extended period) will hit the "What about X" in five seconds.

  2. #27
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    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.
    Yes I am. There has never been a complaint about military over-spending. With the exception of the civil war, It has never been public issue.
    Ever. At all. Not once. In all our history. Not even in the depths of Haughey's fistal rectitude. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
    Except for the occasional moan that we aren't well prepared or well defended. Which is exactly the opposite position. I think there is a well-worn platitude to this effect that gets rolled out whenever defence comes up, and repeated with the same reverence and lack of reflection as an ingrained response at mass.

    So no, I think you are misjudging things and I don't think you can point to any evidence to refute me.
    Last edited by expat01; 3rd April 2017 at 22:40.

  3. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  4. #28
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Yes I am. There has never been a complaint about military over-spending. With the exception of the civil war, It has never been public issue.
    Ever. At all. Not once. In all our history. Not even in the depths of Haughey's fistal rectitude. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
    Except for the occasional moan that we aren't well prepared or well defended. Which is exactly the opposite position. I think there is a well-worn platitude to this effect that gets rolled out whenever defence comes up, and repeated with the same reverence and lack of reflection as an ingrained response at mass.

    So no, I think you are misjudging things and I don't think you can point to any evidence to refute me.
    I would point to the evidence that the Defence Forces were left crumble without any public attention or concern from the forces sent to the Congo, to the Corvette's that couldn't get out of the harbour. (lets not even start at the WW2 situation) Or if you'd like how about the fact that Eithne was meant to have sister ships but that got cancelled due to cost overruns on her, how about the fact that there's no concern about MOWAG's driving around with no uprated protection on UN missions right now. The Department of Finance has always kept the DF on a tight lease and the public are quite happy with that. Just go have a look at the comments regarding the PC9's overflight of Dublin today on the Journal. Or the complaints about their purchase at the time in the first place.

  5. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  6. #29
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like
    After P64 comes on charge I'd like a Damen Crossover type replacement for Eithne (preferably two). The P40s could be replaced afterwards by whatever type is felt appropriate at the time.
    I see no connection to water charges which is a con for privatization in line with corporate goals across Europe (and nothing else)

  7. #30
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Yes I am. There has never been a complaint about military over-spending. With the exception of the civil war, It has never been public issue.
    Ever. At all. Not once. In all our history. Not even in the depths of Haughey's fistal rectitude. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
    Except for the occasional moan that we aren't well prepared or well defended. Which is exactly the opposite position. I think there is a well-worn platitude to this effect that gets rolled out whenever defence comes up, and repeated with the same reverence and lack of reflection as an ingrained response at mass.

    So no, I think you are misjudging things and I don't think you can point to any evidence to refute me.
    There isn't complaints because cuts are just implemented without discussion as required (and the money isn't given in the first place).

  8. #31
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes, the public are uninterested. One way or another.
    Public opinion is not an issue regarding defence spending.

  9. #32
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Yes, the public are uninterested. One way or another.
    Public opinion is not an issue regarding defence spending.
    Because it doesn't compete with other major spending, change that and that attitude is more than likely to change.
    As a nation our Capital Investment across all sectors always lags by at least a generation, relying on legacy investments to preform above and beyond what it was intended to do, and that only changes slowly and with objections. Right now the Capital investment in the DF is so small that nobody in the public is even aware of it, however if tomorrow it was announced that the NS was to grow to 16 hulls (based on P60's alone) over a decade and cost €500 million with base infrastructure, manpower etc) the public would notice and start screaming about "hospitals/schools/garda etc"

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #33
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Because it doesn't compete with other major spending, change that and that attitude is more than likely to change.
    As a nation our Capital Investment across all sectors always lags by at least a generation, relying on legacy investments to preform above and beyond what it was intended to do, and that only changes slowly and with objections. Right now the Capital investment in the DF is so small that nobody in the public is even aware of it, however if tomorrow it was announced that the NS was to grow to 16 hulls (based on P60's alone) over a decade and cost €500 million with base infrastructure, manpower etc) the public would notice and start screaming about "hospitals/schools/garda etc"
    If that is the case then we better start preparing for "Irexit" as our partners in the EU are not going to let us free-load while they push forward to the 2% goal. And the old complaint that we are a poor nations is complete bollXXXX. We have one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, the average take-home wage is on a level with Sweden and Finland, which means way above either Germany, France or the UK. If poorer countries can afford to look after defence so can we. But no we prefer to complain and do nothing, even here were most members are in favour of a decent defence we see the excuse "schools, hospitals, oap etc" always being brought up. Yes we can afford it and yes those we elect should reflect that. It is the duty of every government to protect the state at all levels, this goes from basic laws, through the provision of a police force right up to a defence force. If the ones we have in today don't do it they we have to change them!

    40-50 years ago I would have agreed we can not afford a large defence capacity, we were a poor country, mainly through the mis-management of governments of all colours. But things have changed we have evolved into a very rich country. But the excuses from back then we continue to use even if we did have as a percentage a much high defence budget back then.

    As for the number of ships, in the 70's our Naval Service was almost non-existent, but slowly it built up to the force we have today. And I have not seen any major complaints about any ship that has been ordered. In fact of all the branches I think the Naval Service is one that has the highest standing amongst the population. In the last years we have managed to double the size of Irish waters, we have been able to claim rights beyond our EEZ even if this is still disputed by some (Iceland & Faroese). But if we claim this extended area then we need to be present and this is not possible with a fleet size of 8 vessels. In addition we have started to deploy regularly ships out of area, such deployments are likely to continue and eat into a lot of resources due to the deployment length and transit time. A ship is not a race car, it is slow, although the newer ships have a sprint speed of 23kn the cruising speed is closer to 15kn. So what does this have to do with number of ships, well a ship is only any good if it is where you need it at the time you need it. To reach the outer edge of Irish waters now requires more than 2 days sailing from Cobh. Not exactly a fast response time if there is a need to get there quickly, and that is assuming good weather!

    The principle of 3 ships is something that was seen as the minimum of having one ship always on patrol for an extended period. It was the absolute minimum number the RN said they need of any one type, hence why they had 3 carriers, 3 SSBN's and so on. The logic was one ship is on deployment, one is on work-up following refit and one is in refit. So if we continue to send ships to the Med or some other out-of-area deployment then we will need to have 3 to fill that need. If we want to send 2 ships then the number will increase but not in a linear fashion.

    For the problem of the time to station, and response time we need to think a bit more lateral, we need a force multiplier: eg an onboard helicopter! This not only allows OTH work but enable a presence to be displayed over a much wider area than a RIB. So while I think that the 6-8 P50/60 class would be fine for much of the EEZ I think we would need 4-6 larger helicopter equipped vessels for the longer patrols on the outer EEZ and further out to the limits of our waters.

    Then if the Army is to get sea-lift we need to see how this could be accomplished, either by a MPV like the Crossover design or a LSS. Naturally with the "hospital", even if we know it is more a medical station rather than what most people think of as a hospital!! Naturally this could be the same vessel we use for out-of-area deployment, but then we need 3-4 of them to ensure one is always available.

  12. #34
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    If that is the case then we better start preparing for "Irexit" as our partners in the EU are not going to let us free-load while they push forward to the 2% goal. And the old complaint that we are a poor nations is complete bollXXXX. We have one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, the average take-home wage is on a level with Sweden and Finland, which means way above either Germany, France or the UK. If poorer countries can afford to look after defence so can we. But no we prefer to complain and do nothing, even here were most members are in favour of a decent defence we see the excuse "schools, hospitals, oap etc" always being brought up. Yes we can afford it and yes those we elect should reflect that. It is the duty of every government to protect the state at all levels, this goes from basic laws, through the provision of a police force right up to a defence force. If the ones we have in today don't do it they we have to change them!

    40-50 years ago I would have agreed we can not afford a large defence capacity, we were a poor country, mainly through the mis-management of governments of all colours. But things have changed we have evolved into a very rich country. But the excuses from back then we continue to use even if we did have as a percentage a much high defence budget back then.

    As for the number of ships, in the 70's our Naval Service was almost non-existent, but slowly it built up to the force we have today. And I have not seen any major complaints about any ship that has been ordered. In fact of all the branches I think the Naval Service is one that has the highest standing amongst the population. In the last years we have managed to double the size of Irish waters, we have been able to claim rights beyond our EEZ even if this is still disputed by some (Iceland & Faroese). But if we claim this extended area then we need to be present and this is not possible with a fleet size of 8 vessels. In addition we have started to deploy regularly ships out of area, such deployments are likely to continue and eat into a lot of resources due to the deployment length and transit time. A ship is not a race car, it is slow, although the newer ships have a sprint speed of 23kn the cruising speed is closer to 15kn. So what does this have to do with number of ships, well a ship is only any good if it is where you need it at the time you need it. To reach the outer edge of Irish waters now requires more than 2 days sailing from Cobh. Not exactly a fast response time if there is a need to get there quickly, and that is assuming good weather!

    The principle of 3 ships is something that was seen as the minimum of having one ship always on patrol for an extended period. It was the absolute minimum number the RN said they need of any one type, hence why they had 3 carriers, 3 SSBN's and so on. The logic was one ship is on deployment, one is on work-up following refit and one is in refit. So if we continue to send ships to the Med or some other out-of-area deployment then we will need to have 3 to fill that need. If we want to send 2 ships then the number will increase but not in a linear fashion.

    For the problem of the time to station, and response time we need to think a bit more lateral, we need a force multiplier: eg an onboard helicopter! This not only allows OTH work but enable a presence to be displayed over a much wider area than a RIB. So while I think that the 6-8 P50/60 class would be fine for much of the EEZ I think we would need 4-6 larger helicopter equipped vessels for the longer patrols on the outer EEZ and further out to the limits of our waters.

    Then if the Army is to get sea-lift we need to see how this could be accomplished, either by a MPV like the Crossover design or a LSS. Naturally with the "hospital", even if we know it is more a medical station rather than what most people think of as a hospital!! Naturally this could be the same vessel we use for out-of-area deployment, but then we need 3-4 of them to ensure one is always available.

    I agree that the others are rightly going to get pissed, however as yet them moving towards 2% (ish the German's seem to be "flexible" on that figure given their push back against Tillerman at the NATO talks) is still a NATO led issue, not a EU one. Unless there's an EU Treaty change stipulating some a percentage we are always going to face political indifference or hostility here. And even if/when such a figure was introduced we will have everything from SF to further Left Bitching about the "Conscription in the German Army" and such Bull. And again using our GDP figures to base any decision is nuts, even the official EU stats organisation has actually stripped Irish figures out of it's calculations at this stage as they simply don't work (the Leprechaun economics).

    As to your point about the "excuse", the reality is that we can't ignore basic politics, nor can we ignore the other needs of the state whereas I've pointed out we have legacy investments operating far beyond their designs/intentions and as a result hurting the economy (and thus retarding what we could do). Put another way, given how "unstable" global economics can be in the next few years (from Brexit, to Trump (who just highlighted us as a Trade manipulator), to sabre rattling in the Pacific etc) at this current moment where should what capital investment that we can make be made to generate the best economic return to strengthen the nation to allow us to make future investments? Even the hull increases you are suggesting pays for major domestic spending (where unlike Defence Spending it stays within the economy to a great extent), it's not what any of us want to hear or like but it can't be ignored.

    Sadly the time for major Capital investments without major resistance has for now passed (the Tiger years, where I pointed out we actually dropped the % spent), now right or wrong any Capital spend is measured in trade offs, is there enough political capital to be made in increasing the DF compared to other investments, if there was it would have been made long before now. Short of any international pressure being applied then it's more likely we'd have to wait for other areas of the economy to be addressed first.

  13. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #35
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Because it doesn't compete with other major spending, change that and that attitude is more than likely to change.
    As a nation our Capital Investment across all sectors always lags by at least a generation, relying on legacy investments to preform above and beyond what it was intended to do, and that only changes slowly and with objections. Right now the Capital investment in the DF is so small that nobody in the public is even aware of it, however if tomorrow it was announced that the NS was to grow to 16 hulls (based on P60's alone) over a decade and cost €500 million with base infrastructure, manpower etc) the public would notice and start screaming about "hospitals/schools/garda etc"
    Now see, my problem with this statement is that it is based on nothing other than supposition on your part. No precedent at all. In other words, you made it up. Everything you posted after this is based on this imaginary fact and therefore, not worth replying to.
    Last edited by expat01; 4th April 2017 at 22:22.

  15. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  16. #36
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    Now see, my problem with this statement is that it is based on nothing other than supposition on your part. No precedent at all. In other words, you made it up. Everything you posted after this is based on this imaginary fact and therefore, not worth replying to.
    What's made up exactly? The fact that are infrastructure has massive investment gaps? I can back that up easily across all sectors of the economy. That the Capital investment program is so small that it's not relevant to political discourse of the nation? Go look at the headline that DF budget got a 16 million increase last year and 1 PC9 used up over a third of that, or that just funding a P60 needs multi year phased payments instead of an upfront cost, the Gross Capital budget for the DF in the 2016 budget was €66 million, just ahead of the Gaelteacht, and far behind the big spending departments.

    Haven't made up any of those facts, you on the otherhand have declared with no proof that there would be no public or political issues with increasing defence spending at a time of significant restrictions and provided nothing more than "I feel" to justifiy your position.
    Last edited by Sparky42; 4th April 2017 at 22:37.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, EUFighter liked this post
  18. #37
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    What's made up exactly? The fact that are infrastructure has massive investment gaps? I can back that up easily across all sectors of the economy. That the Capital investment program is so small that it's not relevant to political discourse of the nation? Go look at the headline that DF budget got a 16 million increase last year and 1 PC9 used up over a third of that, or that just funding a P60 needs multi year phased payments instead of an upfront cost, the Gross Capital budget for the DF in the 2016 budget was €66 million, just ahead of the Gaelteacht, and far behind the big spending departments.

    Haven't made up any of those facts, you on the otherhand have declared with no proof that there would be no public or political issues with increasing defence spending at a time of significant restrictions and provided nothing more than "I feel" to justifiy your position.
    I actually agree with a lot you are saying, the capital expenditure on defence is massively under what it should be. But even if we accept that the total amount allocated to the DoD is OK, the split we have is totally wrong. It is generally accepted that 1/3 should be on pay (this includes in our system pensions), 1/3 on operational costs (fuel, munitions, spares etc) and 1/3 on new equipment. We are so far from that it is unbelievable, but if we did go for such a split naturally it would mean a drastic cut in establishment and somehow that is seen as politically unacceptable.

    As for the 2%, the majority of the EU members are also NATO and they have all agreed to raise their levels to what was agreed in Spain. Even recently Ursula von der Leyen, the German Defence minister reaffirmed this for Germany. What is an issue is the recruitment and retention of personnel, Germany no longer uses conscription while Sweden has just recently reintroduced it. Speaking of Sweden and for that matter Finland also they too are raising their defence spends. So we need to tackle the myth of GDP, we have once of the biggest manufacturing sectors in terms of percentage of the total economy in the EU, on a par with Germany. This is why we too are on the Trump Hitlist for have a to high a trade surplus, mainly due to the legal drugs we sell the US. That we do not tax what is earned here is something else and completely within our power. But we can use other formula such as ones based upon "average incomes", if I compare us with the EU average, based upon size and average spend then we should be at €4237m, a hell of a lot more than what we spend today. And as I have based it on the average take home income there can be no excuse that we cannot afford it! The fact we are paying for the P60 in instalments is just crazy!

    But as you pointed out that unless we get pushed from outside we will never see any action on defence. And that is why I said we had better start looking at Irexit, we make up just over 1% of the EU27, and when the majority are paying 2% they will expect us to do the same. Given the lack of understanding for defence in the country it could become a referendum issue and we all know what that could mean!! There has been a totally failure of almost all governments since the Civil War to deal with defence, a long time it was the Civil War that determined our defence position and this has formed then the mind-set of todays generation. Anti-NATO, misunderstood neutrality etc etc. Soon it will be time to wake up and see reality, and that the world since the end of the Cold War has become much more unstable and unpredictable.

  19. #38
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    What's made up exactly? The fact that are infrastructure has massive investment gaps? I can back that up easily across all sectors of the economy. That the Capital investment program is so small that it's not relevant to political discourse of the nation? Go look at the headline that DF budget got a 16 million increase last year and 1 PC9 used up over a third of that, or that just funding a P60 needs multi year phased payments instead of an upfront cost, the Gross Capital budget for the DF in the 2016 budget was €66 million, just ahead of the Gaelteacht, and far behind the big spending departments.

    Haven't made up any of those facts, you on the otherhand have declared with no proof that there would be no public or political issues with increasing defence spending at a time of significant restrictions and provided nothing more than "I feel" to justifiy your position.
    You're right, the dismissal was too blanket and I agree with your assessment of the gaps. However, my evidence for the argument that there would be no public backlash to an increase in defense spending is not that "I feel". It is that there never has been when the government has increased defense spending in worse economic conditions so I do not see why there would suddenly be such complaints now.

    The press coverage of Kehoe's announced announcement was, so far as I could see, pointing out how little it was. Some paper led with the fact that we spend less than Luxembourg and despite this Kehoe still thought it was enough
    Last edited by expat01; 5th April 2017 at 08:44.

  20. #39
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,960
    Post Thanks / Like
    What Lisa Chambers is doing is the right approach, raise the publics knowledge about how lacking we are in defence and how vulnerable we are as a result and eventually more and more of them will start demanding that we pay our soldiers and equip our forces. Its all about perception by joe public and informing the populace. The neutral argument should be countered with. "Want to be neutral? well youve got to pay to defend and enforce that neutrality. Dont want to be neutral? well youve got to pay to do your fair share of work with whatever nations you plan to work alongside." This should always be the mantra.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  21. Likes X-RayOne, EUFighter liked this post
  22. #40
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by expat01 View Post
    You're right, the dismissal was too blanket and I agree with your assessment of the gaps. However, my evidence for the argument that there would be no public backlash to an increase in defense spending is not that "I feel". It is that there never has been when the government has increased defense spending in worse economic conditions so I do not see why there would suddenly be such complaints now.

    The press coverage of Kehoe's announced announcement was, so far as I could see, pointing out how little it was. Some paper led with the fact that we spend less than Luxembourg and despite this Kehoe still thought it was enough
    I would still argue that there are differences between the past and now first given it was Troubles related it was more "real" to people and also that for the majority of that higher spending it was on Current spending (wages) rather than more Capital Spending, but more importantly we were not subject to the terms and conditions of a bailout then, we are now with the commitment on current budget surpluses and long term national debt targets. Both combine mean that "general taxation" pie actually has to manage to cover more rather than in the past were we could go and issue more bonds if the market would support the sale (as is now would be the perfect time to issue the bonds given the rates, but Treaty's prevent that). We are and are going to be in a situation where we are robbing Peter to pay Paul for years to come (short of anything seismic happening to Eurozone policy) and that's a different environment to before.

    Say tomorrow it was announced that in line with EU spending we were going to move over 10 years to the '96 level of 1.2% of GDP spending (1 billion extra) over 10 years, so a 100 million a year, not huge money at all. Until you consider that will be 100 million that isn't going to be available for anything else, so there will be other investments forgone with knock on social implications... How long before someone looks and goes "that would pay for the Maternity Hospital" at which point do you think any Irish politician is going to be able to explain why it's a better spend than Critical "public" investment?

    One off spending announcements like the P64 is forgotten about, a national plan for spending, that does get attention and coverage however.

  23. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  24. #41
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    What Lisa Chambers is doing is the right approach, raise the publics knowledge about how lacking we are in defence and how vulnerable we are as a result and eventually more and more of them will start demanding that we pay our soldiers and equip our forces. Its all about perception by joe public and informing the populace. The neutral argument should be countered with. "Want to be neutral? well youve got to pay to defend and enforce that neutrality. Dont want to be neutral? well youve got to pay to do your fair share of work with whatever nations you plan to work alongside." This should always be the mantra.
    It should, however generations of Politicians and Talking heads have grown this idea that Neutrality actually means basically what we have now, changing that mindset of what neutrality means (for example when people say they support SF's Neutrality Referendum what do they think it means? I'd lay odds it's something nuts like banning the US from Shannon more than spending 2% of GDP to field a modern force), and then you have to change the mindset of spending to support that. Neither is something that's going to happen easily.

  25. Likes DeV liked this post
  26. #42
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    It should, however generations of Politicians and Talking heads have grown this idea that Neutrality actually means basically what we have now, changing that mindset of what neutrality means (for example when people say they support SF's Neutrality Referendum what do they think it means? I'd lay odds it's something nuts like banning the US from Shannon more than spending 2% of GDP to field a modern force), and then you have to change the mindset of spending to support that. Neither is something that's going to happen easily.
    Neutrality in political terms was comforting in that there was a reason not to spend large amounts on Defence. It was used as a stance by Governments to construct next years Budget by a percentage higher or lower than the current Budget. It was a form of Cap and also used to control CS4 Establishment Strengths. The Political mix at this time is divisive , fractious , and Agenda laden, with little real interest in the welfare of the State and it's struggling people. Defence is not a priority to many but more and more we are becoming vulnerable , so we must continue to keep our Defence Forces in a good to go on task status. In any unstable period, it is necessary to take sides with those nearest to you geographically and who have concepts of decent humanity. I dont support anybody that sees no wrong in shooting mothers or drilling holes in kneecaps.
    As regards size of Navy, when you deploy overseas , and then implement the relief , two ships are involved with two out of home waters for up to two plus weeks while they do a handover. This is soon followed by a third ship getting ready to relieve number two. In any year three ships are tied up on deployment.

  27. #43
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    ...As regards size of Navy, when you deploy overseas , and then implement the relief , two ships are involved with two out of home waters for up to two plus weeks while they do a handover. This is soon followed by a third ship getting ready to relieve number two. In any year three ships are tied up on deployment.
    not neccesarily - thats a model that is far too pessimistic, and far too convenient for the 'its too expensive' crowd.

    its a model built around the central pillar of needing a 24/7, 365 presence - CASD, Typhoons on QRA and the like - but thats not the model that either has been followed, or needs to be followed. the ops in the Med aren't 365, so the model that sustains the deployment doesn't have to based around a 365 deployment.

    you wouldn't need 3x 26,000 t Maud class AOR's to provide an April-October deployment to the Med, you'd just need one. its not, after all, going to run out of fuel...

    the future operations model isn't providing a stand-alone force, its providing - for a set period - a capability/asset that slots into a wider force. there is simply no need for Ireland to tell the EU it will provide an AOR for the Med ops on a 365 basis because for half that time there would be no one for the AOR to support.

    Irelands size amongst the 26 EU members means that the political/military requirement for an enduring deployment isn't there - it needs to be able to deploy X force for Y period at Z notice, which is what happens even with much larger military powers within the NATO structures: countries will surge capabilities like the Icelandic or Baltic Air Policing missions, or the ISR deployment in Romania for a set period and then others will take their turn.

  28. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42, Graylion liked this post
  29. #44
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    853
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Neutrality in political terms was comforting in that there was a reason not to spend large amounts on Defence. It was used as a stance by Governments to construct next years Budget by a percentage higher or lower than the current Budget. It was a form of Cap and also used to control CS4 Establishment Strengths. The Political mix at this time is divisive , fractious , and Agenda laden, with little real interest in the welfare of the State and it's struggling people. Defence is not a priority to many but more and more we are becoming vulnerable , so we must continue to keep our Defence Forces in a good to go on task status. In any unstable period, it is necessary to take sides with those nearest to you geographically and who have concepts of decent humanity. I dont support anybody that sees no wrong in shooting mothers or drilling holes in kneecaps.
    As regards size of Navy, when you deploy overseas , and then implement the relief , two ships are involved with two out of home waters for up to two plus weeks while they do a handover. This is soon followed by a third ship getting ready to relieve number two. In any year three ships are tied up on deployment.
    Sorry for lack of clarity. I was just pointing out that out of six suitable ships , when ship A goes to Deployment that she is eventually joined by ship B her relief, while ship A travels back to Irish waters, and some weeks later ship C has to prepare to relieve ship B and so on. To keep one ship on station for even 7 or 8 months of the year needs a three ship availability at the very least. The Mediterranean has been busy this winter with thousands of migrants and the usual cohorts of extreme losses at sea. I would not be recommending an AOR (Tanker) but rather a MRV with replenishment , one stop shop, capability with ability to pump and deliver fuel if required from long range tanks. Such a vessel might carry 800tonnes of fuel to be used for herself or deliverable if so needed. Our OPV's are all long range in any case.

  30. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  31. #45
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    In terms of the question of hull numbers, just reading on a different thing altogether I see the German's ran one of their K130's on a deployment for over 500 days, swapping out the crews but leaving the hull deployed, and I think this is their plan for some of their larger designs going forward. I know the USN tried it but dropped it due to issues, wonder how the German's have viewed it?

  32. #46
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,542
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of the question of hull numbers, just reading on a different thing altogether I see the German's ran one of their K130's on a deployment for over 500 days, swapping out the crews but leaving the hull deployed, and I think this is their plan for some of their larger designs going forward. I know the USN tried it but dropped it due to issues, wonder how the German's have viewed it?
    Radical thinking would say deploy Eithne for the duration and rotate the crew

  33. Likes Graylion liked this post
  34. #47
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Radical thinking would say deploy Eithne for the duration and rotate the crew
    Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the P60's for that given the crews that use the same design rather than the one off hull?

  35. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  36. #48
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    In terms of the question of hull numbers, just reading on a different thing altogether I see the German's ran one of their K130's on a deployment for over 500 days, swapping out the crews but leaving the hull deployed, and I think this is their plan for some of their larger designs going forward. I know the USN tried it but dropped it due to issues, wonder how the German's have viewed it?
    I have some doubts about a 500 day deployment especially for a K130 class, more likely it was deployed and broke down for 500 days!

    The newest German ships the F125 Stabilisation Frigates are being design for 2 year deployment with 210 days each year at sea. This means that for 40% of the deployment time they will be in a port for maintenance/repairs/resupply. And hence not available for operations, if continuous operations are to be achieved 2 vessels have to be deployed. In addition the F125's are deployed with an endurance of 35 days, that is not just something which effects the amount of fuel and stores but also the amount of running maintenance that can be carried out while at sea. Our vessels are design for just 21 days which mean a lot more has to be done in port rather than at sea. This is one of the reasons why the crews can be keep small. And the need for maintenance should not be underestimated even with just a 21 day patrol the engines will have more than double the hours that the average family car achieves in a year!

  37. #49
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    I have some doubts about a 500 day deployment especially for a K130 class, more likely it was deployed and broke down for 500 days!

    The newest German ships the F125 Stabilisation Frigates are being design for 2 year deployment with 210 days each year at sea. This means that for 40% of the deployment time they will be in a port for maintenance/repairs/resupply. And hence not available for operations, if continuous operations are to be achieved 2 vessels have to be deployed. In addition the F125's are deployed with an endurance of 35 days, that is not just something which effects the amount of fuel and stores but also the amount of running maintenance that can be carried out while at sea. Our vessels are design for just 21 days which mean a lot more has to be done in port rather than at sea. This is one of the reasons why the crews can be keep small. And the need for maintenance should not be underestimated even with just a 21 day patrol the engines will have more than double the hours that the average family car achieves in a year!
    This is a quote of the article, though as you say it doesn't shed any light on the port/operational ratio's:
    German Navy corvette ‘Erfurt’ returned to her homeport in Warnemünde, Germany on June 11 after a 17-month deployment.

    Having a ship spend 17 months deployed without returning home was important for the German Navy as it was able to test the ‘intensive use’ principle for the corvettes where four crews man one ship.

    The K 130 corvette sailed out in January 2015 and took part in the UNIFIL and Operation Atalanta missions. During this period, the corvette sailed 74.000 nautical miles.

    As the ship sailed into Warnemünde, sailors from the crew “Delta” currently onboard Erfurt put up a banner which read ‘4 crews 1 unit’ to emphasize the unity of the squadron.

    The 90-meter K 130-class corvette, was commissioned in 2013 and joined the German 1st Corvette-squadron as the fourth of five ships in the class.

    Designed for operation in coastal waters, the corvettes augment the capabilities of fast attack boats and frigates. They are equipped with two 27 mm Mauser MLG27 remote-controlled, fully-automatic cannons, and one OTO Melara 76 mm gun.

    The corvettes are also fitted with a helicopter landing deck and use the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) – guided naval missile for close-in defence of ships against anti-ship missiles, aircraft, helicopters and surface threats.
    The German's must be happy with the class though as they are adding an extra 5 hulls...

  38. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  39. #50
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the P60's for that given the crews that use the same design rather than the one off hull?
    it would, if the P60's were much of an asset to the op - but no flight deck, and bugger all self-protection means that while they are by no means just a drain on resources and require protection, you're not going to have the force generation team (and the governments they are from, which if we're honest is one of the drivers in this..) leaping for joy and sticking money behind the bar.

    with an AOR on the other hand...

  40. Likes Graylion liked this post

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
  •