Thanks Thanks:  477
Likes Likes:  1,040
Dislikes Dislikes:  36
Page 47 of 50 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 1,151 to 1,175 of 1242
  1. #1151
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    Post Thanks / Like

    Flight Decks

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    We don't have enough pilots to keep up current commitments and ops!
    From now on we must include an air capable deck in our new acquisitions/Builds. Ships operating single helicopters may have a contingency preventing a land on, a nearby ship with a spare deck is a place of refuge/diversion. In the meantime get a compatible long range drone capability on all of our ships until the Navy itself gets airborne.
    Flying off ships is inherently risky, on 6th August2017 a Boeing Osprey Tilt Rotor, with 26 Crew and Marine detachment, while departing USS Bonhomme Richard, had a deck incident, putting the A/C in the water with a loss of 3 lives RIP. It is important that your aircraft is matched to the size and motions your ship.

  2. Thanks na grohmití, Turkey thanked for this post
  3. #1152
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    From now on we must include an air capable deck in our new acquisitions/Builds. Ships operating single helicopters may have a contingency preventing a land on, a nearby ship with a spare deck is a place of refuge/diversion.
    Air capable and operating helos can be poles apart as you well know. To become an operator of helos the NS needs an air wing independent of the existing air arms in the state, small steps, lets become 'air capable' before we head down the waste of money route because the children couldn't get on with each other.

    If we can get air capable right we can then focus on air operable in the future.... but the associated costs could cost hulls in the future...be bare ful what you wish for!
    Time for another break I think......

  4. Likes sofa liked this post
  5. #1153
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    If we can get air capable right we can then focus on air operable in the future.... but the associated costs could cost hulls in the future...be bare ful what you wish for!
    Here's an honest question how much more would the P60's have cost to be "air capable"? I mean the River batch is an artificial high, but how much did say the Holland or BAM hulls come in at per unit? Given the "planned" buy of 3 ships and some 150 million for the buy what would that have bought us?

  6. Dislikes Rhodes disliked this post
  7. #1154
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Air and steel are cheap, deciding that helos cannot be in the picture for the next 30 years could be expensive. Call the hanger a multimission bay and the flight deck the cargo deck and say they're for holding migrants or cans going to the leb.
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  8. #1155
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Jack View Post
    Air and steel are cheap, deciding that helos cannot be in the picture for the next 30 years could be expensive. Call the hanger a multimission bay and the flight deck the cargo deck and say they're for holding migrants or cans going to the leb.
    Sure but lets be far with the Crash and the aftermath, say there's only the 150ish million for the 3 P 60's, what does that buy as current Western OPV's? I mean the BAM/Hollands seem to be about €120 million from what I can tell, even if we got the same price that would get you 1 hull out of the replacement, and only 2 if you add in the budget for P64 as I can tell, am I wrong? I mean the isn't the "MRV/EPV" got a ballpark of 150ish?

  9. #1156
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Sure but lets be far with the Crash and the aftermath, say there's only the 150ish million for the 3 P 60's, what does that buy as current Western OPV's? I mean the BAM/Hollands seem to be about €120 million from what I can tell, even if we got the same price that would get you 1 hull out of the replacement, and only 2 if you add in the budget for P64 as I can tell, am I wrong? I mean the isn't the "MRV/EPV" got a ballpark of 150ish?


    So far as I can work out, the difference in price is probably more to do with the comparative sensor fit than the heli pad/hanger - integrated AESA (Holland Class), fire control radar, ESM suites, link-11+, countermeasures, IFF, srboc - different league to the P60's, heli deck or not.

    Also, in all honesty, the P60 price was so reasonable I have a feeling it was financially supported by the UK Gov in some way shape or form.

    I was surprised at how little free space was left on the aft deck of the P60's after the stretch from the P50 class. From what was said here, I think DoD would have had a canary if the vessels had been delivered with an aft deck potentially capable of taking a helicopter - even if it would have required an extensive refit down the road.

    When I look at the Holland Class, the BAE vessels, or the BAM's, it seems to me that the P60's have a huge amount of extra crew space in comparison - they're probably a lot more comfortable to serve on.
    Last edited by pym; 7th August 2017 at 23:12.

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, DeV, restless liked this post
  11. #1157
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,315
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Jack View Post
    There's a whiff of arrogance in that comment that ill-befits a nation with HPVs that can't afford the helicopter......... All of our new builds don't have a helideck and our UAVs are made my DJI.......

    Always a good idea to check the mirror before taking the piss .....
    Mirror Mirror on the wall ...

    I think what you were trying to say is ....

    Ireland once had aspirations to equip a HPV with a Naval Service rotary wing

    Due to crewing, equipment and financial constraints this did not happen

    The flight deck requirement was dropped for subsequent acquisitions ...

    What exactly is your point?
    Last edited by Orion; 7th August 2017 at 23:32.

  12. #1158
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Suggestions that all a ship needs for a helideck is a bit of flat deck with a H painted on it is absolute nonsense. Unless of course you only want the aircraft to land and take off when the ship is safely berthed.
    Eithne's fit, while relatively basic compared to some, included an air search radar to vector the aircraft back to the ship (with team of ATC like naval crew embarked aboard ship in a purpose built operations room below the bridge) once the aircraft found the ship it was provided with visual and electronic landing aids aboard the ship. On landing it also provided the aircraft with a deck to which it could anchor itself to, while the ground crew got to work on securing the aircraft to a pitching, rolling deck, provided with numerous aircraft tie down points. If things went wrong they had to be capable of puutting out an aircraft fire on deck before the fire spread to the ship. The ship also provided a refuelling source. This was useful but problematic.
    On top of the above the helideck needs to be located somewhere that eddys and wind shear from the ships superstructure and funnel would be minimal.
    All these things add greatly to a projected cost.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  13. Thanks Orion, Flamingo, DeV, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #1159
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    Post Thanks / Like

    Flight Decks

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Suggestions that all a ship needs for a helideck is a bit of flat deck with a H painted on it is absolute nonsense. Unless of course you only want the aircraft to land and take off when the ship is safely berthed.
    Eithne's fit, while relatively basic compared to some, included an air search radar to vector the aircraft back to the ship (with team of ATC like naval crew embarked aboard ship in a purpose built operations room below the bridge) once the aircraft found the ship it was provided with visual and electronic landing aids aboard the ship. On landing it also provided the aircraft with a deck to which it could anchor itself to, while the ground crew got to work on securing the aircraft to a pitching, rolling deck, provided with numerous aircraft tie down points. If things went wrong they had to be capable of puutting out an aircraft fire on deck before the fire spread to the ship. The ship also provided a refuelling source. This was useful but problematic.
    On top of the above the helideck needs to be located somewhere that eddys and wind shear from the ships superstructure and funnel would be minimal.
    All these things add greatly to a projected cost.
    The P31 was equipped to HOSTAC Level 1 in 1984. What has happened in the meantime is debatable but the aspirations of modern Naval operations at sea includes ability to land on most ship borne helicopters but not necessarily to retain them or provide a hangar. Ability to fuel, provide refuge, vertrep, transfer personnel or troops are all sustainable assets for any ship in a cohesive unit. The p31 costs were minimal for the times that were in it then. If we harp on at costs we will continue to dilute capability and waste millions on stocking fillers.

  15. #1160
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The P31 was equipped to HOSTAC Level 1 in 1984. What has happened in the meantime is debatable but the aspirations of modern Naval operations at sea includes ability to land on most ship borne helicopters but not necessarily to retain them or provide a hangar. Ability to fuel, provide refuge, vertrep, transfer personnel or troops are all sustainable assets for any ship in a cohesive unit. The p31 costs were minimal for the times that were in it then. If we harp on at costs we will continue to dilute capability and waste millions on stocking fillers.
    Cost and VFM is what the DF have woken up to in the last 10 years

    The reality is that we will have 1 vessel capable of operating a helo (the MRV) the facilities available (air search radar, hanger facilities, crew facilities, DCFF capabilities, refuelling capabilities etc etc) will come down to how much money can be found and the costs quoted.

    Either way even if there was 4 NS vessels with full helo capability, the most cost efficient solution would be EC135s/AW139s (best to be hoped for would be navalised ones, worst case existing ones) operated and maintained to AC personnel. It just can't be justified.

  16. #1161
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    You are near the nub of the naval problem. Based on an 0.3% of total finance we are confined to police duties and global ACP. We are neutered in the Defend and Protect role and a long way from the firepower of our lowly corvettes. I am not proposing all our ships should now have flight decks or that we have any connection with the AC other than initial training. We can build a concrete dimensional exact flight deck with ship type obstructional heights on the waste grounds in Haulbowline. In the meantime we must ensure that the MRV can cover ALL roles within reason but no painting into corners and no connection with other Corps additional requirements, such as vehicles of unique dimensions, workshops, and other red line ideas.

  17. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey liked this post
  18. #1162
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    The reality is that we will have 1 vessel capable of operating a helo (the MRV) the facilities available (air search radar, hanger facilities, crew facilities, DCFF capabilities, refuelling capabilities etc etc) will come down to how much money can be found and the costs quoted.
    Wheres the reality......we don't have that vessel, its a political aspiration as opposed to any semblance of a realty.

    Having a single unit is capable of these tasks is another fallacy, if we are to have the various packages associated with any vessel, it must be available at all times, and that takes at least two vessels.

    I am not proposing all our ships should now have flight decks or that we have any connection with the AC other than initial training. We can build a concrete dimensional exact flight deck with ship type obstructional heights on the waste grounds in Haulbowline
    .

    And it can be used as a basket ball court or someother... Until we wake up the reality of not having naval people to operate naval helicopters then that is all the piece of ground is worth!

    Unless we have intention to deploy vessels on peace enforcement missions outside of the state we don't need helos based on vessels and certainly not to the spec Eithne was built to.

    We don't do anti submarine warfare, so why do we need a ship capable of operating a helo...?

    We don't have any serious anti ship capability so again anti ship ops with helos why?

    We have a very well equipped and capable coast guard independent of the DF who are never going to operate from minor war fare vessels?

    Yes we could do with a ship that could land and fuel a helo, but we don't need to go down the route of having organic aviation units at sea.

    Here's an honest question how much more would the P60's have cost to be "air capable"?
    how long is a piece of string as we have never been capable of doing enough..'all or nothing '...and usually 'all' leading to catastrophic failure because of concept due to oversight.

    Either way even if there was 4 NS vessels with full helo capability, the most cost efficient solution would be EC135s/AW139s (best to be hoped for would be navalised ones, worst case existing ones) operated and maintained to AC personnel. It just can't be justified.
    Some one will always be able to justify it if only to try and prove that everything done up to that point was flawed.

    You just have to look across the water where the RN have built to carriers that they RAF may never commit aircraft to !.... just because someone says they need aircraft carriers!!!!
    Time for another break I think......

  19. Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #1163
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=hptmurphy;453734]Wheres the reality......we don't have that vessel, its a political aspiration as opposed to any semblance of a realty.

    Having a single unit is capable of these tasks is another fallacy, if we are to have the various packages associated with any vessel, it must be available at all times, and that takes at least two vessels.

    .

    And it can be used as a basket ball court or someother... Until we wake up the reality of not having naval people to operate naval helicopters then that is all the piece of ground is worth!

    Unless we have intention to deploy vessels on peace enforcement missions outside of the state we don't need helos based on vessels and certainly not to the spec Eithne was built to.

    We don't do anti submarine warfare, so why do we need a ship capable of operating a helo...?

    We don't have any serious anti ship capability so again anti ship ops with helos why?

    Can we not accept that any naval vessel with potential will have a deck that will accept a helicopter. At this time nobody is suggesting that we have an onboard helicopter capable of ASW or AS missile strike. If the will to do so arises then the deck is there for a helicopter in need of a landing for urgent reasons such as fuel. An MRV ship without a flight deck is unthinkable and I doubt if such exists.
    If we ever develop an Air Element then training procedure does include a shore based dummy deck and a moored land on barge in a local estuary. Nothing high tech. and of moderate cost.
    We have to face the reasons that Navies exist and the range of craft needed including surface combat line vessels. We are unique in comparison to similar countries such as Norway, Finland, and Denmark in that we are neutral but make NO provision to enforce it.

  21. Likes ias liked this post
  22. #1164
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    An MRV ship without a flight deck is unthinkable and I doubt if such exists
    .

    By definition any Multi Role Vessel should in the very least have a flight deck....but if you are to base a helicopter aboard ship at anytime in the future what would you propose the function of that helo be?

    Unless it has a specific role, it won't be funded. Technology has overtaken that which we originally envisaged the role of helos aboard ship to be.

    The NS doesn't undertake and probably won't undertake all the roles mentioned in the future so other than providing a very basic deck capability , the NS don't need a helo for a helos sake but someone using a helo might need a ship.

    To take that a stage further that ship then must be able to take all size helos, probably including S92 or Merlin sized helos so now what size does the ship need to be to safely handle such machines.

    The training is not a problem for basic helo ops all you need to be able to do is pump fuel and put out a fire and train a few FDOs.

    We are unique in comparison to similar countries such as Norway, Finland, and Denmark in that we are neutral but make NO provision to enforce it.
    And partially our reason for this uniqueness is our non alignment and lack of contractual agreement to provide that which is required to part of alignment.

    Doctrine based on the reality of war fighting as opposed to ' defence ' and Aid to the Civil power being concepts we have never been able to grasp, head buried firmly in the sand and with the greater impact of social issues ever increasing, this a factor that will never be realised and therefore spending will not increase substantially as no politician has ever had a mandate to expotentially develop force projection of our defence forces.In fact the mantra has always been, 'be thankful for what you have as it can always be reduced'

    So helos and ships... lip service at some point in the future but never to be given serious thought again.
    Time for another break I think......

  23. #1165
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    .

    By definition any Multi Role Vessel should in the very least have a flight deck....but if you are to base a helicopter aboard ship at anytime in the future what would you propose the function of that helo be?

    Unless it has a specific role, it won't be funded. Technology has overtaken that which we originally envisaged the role of helos aboard ship to be.

    The NS doesn't undertake and probably won't undertake all the roles mentioned in the future so other than providing a very basic deck capability , the NS don't need a helo for a helos sake but someone using a helo might need a ship.

    To take that a stage further that ship then must be able to take all size helos, probably including S92 or Merlin sized helos so now what size does the ship need to be to safely handle such machines.

    The training is not a problem for basic helo ops all you need to be able to do is pump fuel and put out a fire and train a few FDOs.
    they have to maintain currency I assume but AC & IRCG could do that



    And partially our reason for this uniqueness is our non alignment and lack of contractual agreement to provide that which is required to part of alignment.

    Doctrine based on the reality of war fighting as opposed to ' defence ' and Aid to the Civil power being concepts we have never been able to grasp, head buried firmly in the sand and with the greater impact of social issues ever increasing, this a factor that will never be realised and therefore spending will not increase substantially as no politician has ever had a mandate to expotentially develop force projection of our defence forces.In fact the mantra has always been, 'be thankful for what you have as it can always be reduced'

    So helos and ships... lip service at some point in the future but never to be given serious thought again.
    We definitely have the doctrine, just not sufficient personnel or equipment

  24. #1166
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like

  25. Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  26. #1167
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well done our side, however we need a tight Estimate of the Situation dealing with a resurgent Italian trained Libyan Navy/Coastguard. Clearly we need to know the extent of their controlled " Search and rescue " zone and their attitude to non NGO Naval vessels, such as ours. it is at times like this that Naval capability is paramount with clear ROE's.

  27. #1168
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Well done our side, however we need a tight Estimate of the Situation dealing with a resurgent Italian trained Libyan Navy/Coastguard. Clearly we need to know the extent of their controlled " Search and rescue " zone and their attitude to non NGO Naval vessels, such as ours. it is at times like this that Naval capability is paramount with clear ROE's.
    Not just Italian trained, we could well be training them (part of the Op Sophia mandate)

  28. #1169
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    .

    Technology has overtaken that which we originally envisaged the role of helos aboard ship to be.than providing a very basic deck capability , the NS don't need a helo for a helos sake but someone using a helo might need a ship.
    What technology has taken over the role of a ship based helicopter?
    And why does the rest of the world not know about this wonder technology as the majority of new build of the 1800ton+ OPV's all have an on-board heli?

  29. Likes ibenji liked this post
  30. #1170
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    .
    And partially our reason for this uniqueness is our non alignment and lack of contractual agreement to provide that which is required to part of alignment.

    Non alignment is so misunderstood in this country, many think it means pacifism. What we forget is that while an aligned member of NATO is expected to spend 2% of GDP the reason why there are so many members is that such an alliance allows for sharing of defence costs. For a non-aligned nation they have to be capable of providing all the necessary capabilities on their own, it is a reason why non-aligned countries are expected to pay a higher percentage.

  31. #1171
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    What technology has taken over the role of a ship based helicopter?
    And why does the rest of the world not know about this wonder technology as the majority of new build of the 1800ton+ OPV's all have an on-board heli?
    UAVs not as mulriRole but an option

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Non alignment is so misunderstood in this country, many think it means pacifism. What we forget is that while an aligned member of NATO is expected to spend 2% of GDP the reason why there are so many members is that such an alliance allows for sharing of defence costs. For a non-aligned nation they have to be capable of providing all the necessary capabilities on their own, it is a reason why non-aligned countries are expected to pay a higher percentage.
    We are not non-aligned we are well aligned with the EU

  32. #1172
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    What technology has taken over the role of a ship based helicopter?
    And why does the rest of the world not know about this wonder technology as the majority of new build of the 1800ton+ OPV's all have an on-board heli?
    If you were as knowledgeable as you believe you would know why the helo became outmoded

    The original concept of the ship borne helicopter in the Irish Naval Service was to enhance Fishery Protection detection, this was made redundant by improved monitoring and computerized systems, there was no longer no need for an eye in the sky so to speak. The Dauphin at sea served no other function when it was available and indeed the helo was so limited in the role it was contributory to only one detention when it did eventually become operational.

    A single UAV of lesser cost and in need of less manpower hours in upkeep could easily perform that observation role as provided by the Dauphins.

    Non alignment is so misunderstood in this country, many think it means pacifism. What we forget is that while an aligned member of NATO is expected to spend 2% of GDP the reason why there are so many members is that such an alliance allows for sharing of defence costs. For a non-aligned nation they have to be capable of providing all the necessary capabilities on their own, it is a reason why non-aligned countries are expected to pay a higher percentage


    NATO was built as a war fighting alliance a deterent to the Warsaw pact specifically to fight a war in Northern / Western Europe, it is not the UN or an alliance for peace. Its aim was to build a force that could take on the Warsaw Pact with common doctrine and equipment ,its assets and command being pooled among the members. By not signing up to it we not only missed out on huge opportunities to avail of access to equipment and logistics and greatly reduced prices but we also all but alienated ourselves politically from NATO by the repeated stance on neutrality which of course was a very thin veil for success Irish governments to spend money to keep us on a par with the realistic requirements for neutrality as demonstrated by Switzerland or Sweden.

    Our Naval Service has only risen to the capacity it currently has due to the willingness of the EU to contribute to the building costs in order to have a credible fishery protection fleet in the biggest fishing grounds in the EU. The fishery protection work undertaken is on behalf of the EU. Only recently has the EU begun to raise 'battle groups' which are in effect a second line to NATO and because of our EU membership our stance with NATO hasn't had to be compromised to contribute to the battle groups.

    As with our still evolving civil war politics we are still at least two generations away from moving on from our neutrality stance and becoming team players with NATO.

    We are not non-aligned we are well aligned with the EU
    Yes within the EU......being able to put a mechanised company on the ground , or manning the phones really puts up up there with the major players........
    Time for another break I think......

  33. Likes Herald liked this post
  34. #1173
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    We definitely have the doctrine, just not sufficient personnel or equipment
    No.... We do not have a doctrine for force projection...

    The Defence Forces' mission is: “To contribute to the security of the State by providing for the military defence of its territorial integrity and to fulfil all roles assigned by Government, through the deployment of well-motivated and effective Defence Forces.”
    To defend one must be able to protect itself adequately to take the fight to the enemy, we live in a country with no air defence, its maritime forces squarely rigged for ATCP and humanitarian missions and a demoralized, under paid army with only token means to defend, never mind assault an enemy.

    Again its not the DF who are at fault but the politcos, civil servants and therefore the citizenry of the state.
    Time for another break I think......

  35. Likes Herald liked this post
  36. #1174
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    If you were as knowledgeable as you believe you would know why the helo became outThe original concept of the ship borne helicopter in the Irish Naval Service was to enhance Fishery Protection detection, this was made redundant by improved monitoring and computerized systems, there was no longer no need for an eye in the sky so to speak.
    yes so long as the FV has its AIS and transponder turned on, that's why CASA flights continue (and they do detect).

    NATO was built as a war fighting alliance a deterent to the Warsaw pact specifically to fight a war in Northern / Western Europe, it is not the from NATO by the repeated stance on neutrality which of course was a very thin veil for success Irish governments to spend money to keep us on a par with the realistic requirements for neutrality as demonstrated by Switzerland or Sweden.

    As with our still evolving civil war politics we are still at least two generations away from moving on from our neutrality stance and becoming team players with NATO.
    PfP
    U.K. MOU

    Yes within the EU......being able to put a mechanised company on the ground , or manning the phones really puts up up there with the major players........
    Providing a Mech Inf Bn to Chad and the Force Operational Commander

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    No.... We do not have a doctrine for force projection....
    You said war fighting - we most definitely do have the doctrine!

    Force projection doctrine is more than likely there too

  37. #1175
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    No....




    Again its not the DF who are at fault but the politcos, civil servants and therefore the citizenry of the state.
    Perhaps you should also include uniformed Staffs at all levels. Any unit deployed, whether Naval or Military, must be fully equipped to meet in theater requirements of detection, protection, and offence as required. It is the uniformed Branches that decide we are "Good to Go". In the real world leaving critical areas short of resources is high lighted daily in the Media , and may be, should be met by a decline to approve or sign off by the Brass hats? I,m recommending that the Order of Battle and associated equipment and personnel as approved must be met at all times.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 12th August 2017 at 09:54.

  38. Likes hptmurphy 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
  •