PDA

View Full Version : how big/small should the NS be?



boy in blue
11th November 2014, 16:36
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

ibenji
11th November 2014, 17:29
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.

boy in blue
12th November 2014, 09:17
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

Archimedes
13th November 2014, 17:15
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.

na grohmiti
13th November 2014, 18:31
Prior to WW1, the british Government spent 50% of its entire budget on the Royal Navy.

boy in blue
13th November 2014, 18:41
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??

Shaqra
13th November 2014, 18:44
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.

boy in blue
13th November 2014, 18:44
or spending 24 billion on welfare

tomh903
13th November 2014, 22:17
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.

sofa
13th November 2014, 22:53
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.

danno
13th November 2014, 23:25
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.

ibenji
14th November 2014, 11:53
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

EUFighter
21st May 2016, 05:05
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.

ancientmariner
3rd April 2017, 10:20
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.

expat01
3rd April 2017, 11:26
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.

Graylion
3rd April 2017, 14:02
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

Graylion
3rd April 2017, 14:08
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.

trellheim
3rd April 2017, 14:59
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

Sparky42
3rd April 2017, 15:09
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?

trellheim
3rd April 2017, 16:05
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.

expat01
3rd April 2017, 16:13
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.

Sparky42
3rd April 2017, 17:20
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...

expat01
3rd April 2017, 17:33
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.

Sparky42
3rd April 2017, 17:54
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.

ibenji
3rd April 2017, 21:16
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

Sparky42
3rd April 2017, 23:30
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.

expat01
3rd April 2017, 23:36
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.

Sparky42
3rd April 2017, 23:56
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.

Galloglass
4th April 2017, 01:41
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)

DeV
4th April 2017, 06:37
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).

expat01
4th April 2017, 07:36
Yes, the public are uninterested. One way or another.
Public opinion is not an issue regarding defence spending.

Sparky42
4th April 2017, 12:40
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"

EUFighter
4th April 2017, 14:51
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.

Sparky42
4th April 2017, 15:35
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.

expat01
4th April 2017, 23:20
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.

Sparky42
4th April 2017, 23:34
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.

EUFighter
5th April 2017, 07:12
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.

expat01
5th April 2017, 09:38
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

morpheus
5th April 2017, 09:41
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.

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 11:15
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.

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 11:18
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.

ancientmariner
5th April 2017, 14:43
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.

ropebag
5th April 2017, 15:43
...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.

ancientmariner
5th April 2017, 16:27
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.

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 16:30
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?

DeV
5th April 2017, 19:40
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

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 20:24
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?

EUFighter
5th April 2017, 20:28
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!

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 20:31
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...

ropebag
5th April 2017, 20:57
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...

EUFighter
5th April 2017, 21:12
This is a quote of the article, though as you say it doesn't shed any light on the port/operational ratio's:

The German's must be happy with the class though as they are adding an extra 5 hulls...

Good to know, I have found the original report http://www.marine.de/portal/a/marine/start/ueberuns/einheiten/korvetten/k130/f262/berichte/!ut/p/z1/hY9BC4JAEIX_kbNKph5X1LRMJKXavcSiixm2K8smHfrxrQTepD k8mPdmvmGAwhWoYFPfMd1LwQbTE7q9hX5e507gOHmCMMriuEhd N0t3gQ1nuPwboSZGK4URVC0HYhjeKqPcQAUUaMutRgquZ9Vc6N 5op5iWyhql0sOcvJQyidW3QJAdhchbTtkfjOvDce-jIMrC0wx8sIm9l13WzE8DuTPRDryUDf4Z4zPxi8LtvraJQrI!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#Z7_B8LTL2922LF0A0IEENH55IHGP4

But again just as I said with the F125 it was not at sea for 500 days, it was deployed for 500 days, this is nothing new. We only have to look at what the old RN used to do, they deployed all over the world for 2 years at a time. But it means that your support functions also have to deploy, this would mean not just the crews would go out but also the necessary base personnel also.

ropebag
5th April 2017, 21:27
One of the Trafalgar class SSN's did 10 months in the last few years, and i don't doubt others have done similar deployments since. HMS Clyde does several year deployments while based out of the FI - sticking a ship in the Med for 6 months should not be outwith the wit of man...

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 22:21
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...

Oh sure, if we are talking about a future hull that would make sense without question, I just meant in terms of what we actually have at the moment (ie if we were deploying tomorrow) then a P60 would make more sense to me of the hulls we have, I mean Eithne doesn't have any clear advantages with even the deck not usable.

Sparky42
5th April 2017, 22:23
Good to know, I have found the original report
But again just as I said with the F125 it was not at sea for 500 days, it was deployed for 500 days, this is nothing new. We only have to look at what the old RN used to do, they deployed all over the world for 2 years at a time. But it means that your support functions also have to deploy, this would mean not just the crews would go out but also the necessary base personnel also.

While at the same time from memory the USN dropped such programs for crew swapping on the Burkes (seem to remember that the material state of the ship being used as a testbed ended up in a poorer condition compared to others) and they've abandoned it for the LCS program.

DeV
5th April 2017, 22:56
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?
Just an example


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.

The NS fleet pre-economic crash were doing 210 patrol days annually, 28 days annual refit, they were out of the water for 2 weeks every 3 years or so. Not sure of the benefits (or not), but a lot of navies do refits lasting months (or longer!!) but are less frequent. The NS deployments are more or less permanent (or be it in home waters).


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. again just using Eithne as an example


While at the same time from memory the USN dropped such programs for crew swapping on the Burkes (seem to remember that the material state of the ship being used as a testbed ended up in a poorer condition compared to others) and they've abandoned it for the LCS program.

Whatever about the NS establishment, the NS strength isn't high enough

ancientmariner
6th April 2017, 11:59
Just an example



The NS fleet pre-economic crash were doing 210 patrol days annually, 28 days annual refit, they were out of the water for 2 weeks every 3 years or so. Not sure of the benefits (or not), but a lot of navies do refits lasting months (or longer!!) but are less frequent. The NS deployments are more or less permanent (or be it in home waters).

again just using Eithne as an example



Whatever about the NS establishment, the NS strength isn't high enough

The Naval establishments, because of ships, is made up of many special skilled trades to keep the ship running efficiently. Using back to back crews to keep a ship on station can lead to a gradual melt down of reliability due to long fingering a repair or leaving it to your relief hoping he might do it. Ships can be kept on station by partial crew reliefs , half and half, and also using an adjacent friendly port to carry out shut down repairs such as Valetta or even Gibraltar. The costs would largely be relief Air Fares unless a Casa type plane could be used. Valletta and Gibraltar have Dockyard facilities.

expat01
6th April 2017, 14:44
The RAN introduced their Armidale patrol boats with three crews per boat to keep up the tempo, then changed to one crew. Anyone know why?

Sparky42
6th April 2017, 15:01
The RAN introduced their Armidale patrol boats with three crews per boat to keep up the tempo, then changed to one crew. Anyone know why?

Could be because the rode those hulls into the ground already? Seem to remember apart from material defects (think one compartment had to be ruled off limits during operations due to poisonous leaks, don't know if they fixed that), the decision in regards to intercepting refugee boats meant the sea time was increased substantially.

Haven't they started the replacement program for those hulls already?

Graylion
6th April 2017, 15:28
The Naval establishments, because of ships, is made up of many special skilled trades to keep the ship running efficiently. Using back to back crews to keep a ship on station can lead to a gradual melt down of reliability due to long fingering a repair or leaving it to your relief hoping he might do it.

On that note:

http://aviationhumor.net/pilots-vs-maintenance-engineers/

Sparky42
6th April 2017, 15:33
The Naval establishments, because of ships, is made up of many special skilled trades to keep the ship running efficiently. Using back to back crews to keep a ship on station can lead to a gradual melt down of reliability due to long fingering a repair or leaving it to your relief hoping he might do it. Ships can be kept on station by partial crew reliefs , half and half, and also using an adjacent friendly port to carry out shut down repairs such as Valetta or even Gibraltar. The costs would largely be relief Air Fares unless a Casa type plane could be used. Valletta and Gibraltar have Dockyard facilities.

From memory that's what the USN found doing "Sea Swap" with the Burkes, however it does seem that the German's think they can do it without significant impacts.

EUFighter
6th April 2017, 18:08
Could be because the rode those hulls into the ground already? Seem to remember apart from material defects (think one compartment had to be ruled off limits during operations due to poisonous leaks, don't know if they fixed that), the decision in regards to intercepting refugee boats meant the sea time was increased substantially.

Haven't they started the replacement program for those hulls already?

They plans to replace them together with the MCMV'S and some other Hydrographic survey ships with a New class upto 2000T. The Damen OPV2-1800 is one of the shortlisted designs.

Sparky42
6th April 2017, 18:18
They plans to replace them together with the MCMV'S and some other Hydrographic survey ships with a New class upto 2000T. The Damen OPV2-1800 is one of the shortlisted designs.

Yeah, not helped when they had one of them burn to the ground during a refit, always did think the design size was too light/small for the job they had to do, thought they would have got better value going for something like the NZ OPV and spam them instead.

expat01
6th April 2017, 19:40
From memory that's what the USN found doing "Sea Swap" with the Burkes, however it does seem that the German's think they can do it without significant impacts.

They're Germans. The Germans could time an orgasm. The only people more German than the Germans are the Swiss. And they wont be making any naval breakthroughs soon.

ancientmariner
9th April 2017, 19:46
They're Germans. The Germans could time an orgasm. The only people more German than the Germans are the Swiss. And they wont be making any naval breakthroughs soon.

While deciding how to sustain ships at sea, we must also consider the future composition and tasking of the Naval Service. Is it time that some ships should be fitted as Surface Combat Ships? We have six major units that have limited hot roles but little for Defending and Protecting either our home waters or those far afield.

Graylion
10th April 2017, 17:16
While deciding how to sustain ships at sea, we must also consider the future composition and tasking of the Naval Service. Is it time that some ships should be fitted as Surface Combat Ships? We have six major units that have limited hot roles but little for Defending and Protecting either our home waters or those far afield.

TBH I think we'd have the equivalent of a "Panzerschiff debate"(*) if we were to go for combatants. I'd leave combatants to our allies and work on support units. I maintain the idea of the AOR.


(*) The big debate in Germany in the 1920s before the 3 Deutschland class cruisers were ordered

ancientmariner
10th April 2017, 17:35
TBH I think we'd have the equivalent of a "Panzerschiff debate"(*) if we were to go for combatants. I'd leave combatants to our allies and work on support units. I maintain the idea of the AOR.


(*) The big debate in Germany in the 1920s before the 3 Deutschland class cruisers were ordered

There is a push , currently, for us to participate in EURFORNAV in the Red Sea/ Horn of Africa area. The ships types mentioned within the combined EU organised Fleet are Surface Combat vessels, Helicopter ships, ships with flight decks, and LPD type vessels as Flag Ship.
If we had armed our current ships to 30mm in the after sector, included suitable high speed target detection radar, together with more 76mm versatility, then we could happily play in the higher leagues. I support a modern version of the Italian San Giusto and reduce landing craft to four.

DeV
10th April 2017, 17:44
Well we need vessels capable of the assigned roles. Like it or not the vast majority of those roles require minimal armament. The NS need multi role hulls, which are capable of operating in some of the roughest waters in the world.

Ever more importantly they must retain personnel in order to put those ships to sea!

I'm not suggesting that the main armament of a vessel is a border team with 9mm's but we have to be realistic!

If we cannot afford to give decent enough pay and conditions to retain personnel so that vessels can complete their peacetime roles it make zero sense to spend a shed load of money purchasing hoverships with rail cannons because (a) they will not have the utility to complete the day to day taskings and (b) they won't put to see because we don't have the personnel.

DeV
10th April 2017, 17:47
There is a push , currently, for us to participate in EURFORNAV in the Red Sea/ Horn of Africa area. The ships types mentioned within the combined EU organised Fleet are Surface Combat vessels, Helicopter ships, ships with flight decks, and LPD type vessels as Flag Ship.
If we had armed our current ships to 30mm in the after sector, included suitable high speed target detection radar, together with more 76mm versatility, then we could happily play in the higher leagues. I support a modern version of the Italian San Giusto and reduce landing craft to four.

Not necessarily a push for the NS to be deployed. At the minute EUNAVFOR Somalia consists of 1 X LPD, 1 X Frigate and MRAs

expat01
11th April 2017, 07:41
Well we need vessels capable of the assigned roles. Like it or not the vast majority of those roles require minimal armament. The NS need multi role hulls, which are capable of operating in some of the roughest waters in the world.

Ever more importantly they must retain personnel in order to put those ships to sea!

I'm not suggesting that the main armament of a vessel is a border team with 9mm's but we have to be realistic!

If we cannot afford to give decent enough pay and conditions to retain personnel so that vessels can complete their peacetime roles it make zero sense to spend a shed load of money purchasing hoverships with rail cannons because (a) they will not have the utility to complete the day to day taskings and (b) they won't put to see because we don't have the personnel.
I think you've got three different and important points there.
Agreed, we can't talk about multi crew ships if you barely have one crew per vessel to start with.
Our current role is fishery protection/ policing in rough waters and the vessels are armed for that.
If we need multi-role vessels, we don't have them. Our vessels are armed for the single role you have defined and cannot venture towards hostile environments without better equipped vessels to protect them or even detect the danger.

EUFighter
11th April 2017, 08:16
The role of the Naval service is not actually Fishery Protection that is the role of the "Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority" who delegate currently the at-sea role to the Naval Service.

The role of the Naval Service as given on the official website is as follows: "Defence roles include defending territorial seas, deterring intrusive or aggressive acts, conducting maritime surveillance, maintaining an armed naval presence, ensuring right of passage, protecting marine assets and contributing to a blockade if required. The Naval Service must also be capable of supporting Army operations by sea lift and close naval support."

That the government has expanded this to include out-of-area operations such as Operation Pontus, however as we have seen with the issue of extra payments the government expects to get this extra role for "free". However now those who has served will get that extra pay and as one of the reason given was "The payment takes into account the constant threat of bombardment as naval ships neared the hostile Libyan coast.".

And I do not hopefully need to go into the situation around the Horn of Africa, UAE ship hit, US destroyer attacked etc. The point is if we are going to send ships into war zones and even if there has been no classical "declaration of war" they are war zone, then we need to protect those vessels. We are not talking about "Pocket Battleships" or "rail guns" but about putting a minimum of self-protection onto our naval vessels. This means a sensor upgrade active and passive to alert of any possible threat and then a means to defend against it. If we do not do this then we have no place sending personnel and ships on missions to such areas no matter how high the humanitarian need is. Therefore no matter what number or types of ships we have they must be equipped for the missions they are been sent on.

ancientmariner
11th April 2017, 09:17
And I do not hopefully need to go into the situation around the Horn of Africa, UAE ship hit, US destroyer attacked etc. The point is if we are going to send ships into war zones and even if there has been no classical "declaration of war" they are war zone, then we need to protect those vessels. We are not talking about "Pocket Battleships" or "rail guns" but about putting a minimum of self-protection onto our naval vessels. This means a sensor upgrade active and passive to alert of any possible threat and then a means to defend against it. If we do not do this then we have no place sending personnel and ships on missions to such areas no matter how high the humanitarian need is. Therefore no matter what number or types of ships we have they must be equipped for the missions they are been sent on.

Exactly a view I would support. On the current mission there was invasion of space by Libyan unidentified units. There is plenty of danger out there and it is our duty to take situations and contingencies into account for all missions. There is a belief , by some , that "we could do that" , as part of the deterrent mission off The Horn of Africa. I,m not so sure due to ship design , freeboard , and layout.

EUFighter
11th April 2017, 10:34
To get back to the question of the size of a future NS, taking into account the primary missions of the Naval Service as set out by the Naval Service itself, the role it has supporting the SFPA and the humanitarian missions the government wants to send ship on then there are too few ships and personnel.

As a minimum 2 MRV such as the Crossover 131 Combatant or Absalon Class with associated helicopter either MH60 or NH90. Two is the absolute minimum to have one available at all time, better would 3-4. These would cover the combatant part of the NS mission, provide a better platform for humanitarian support and be able to lift and support the army (better a marine battalion/company).

The current P50/P60's cover most of the home water missions although a sensor suite upgrade along with a modern C3 system would be necessary. 2 more hulls to add to the current fleet would balance up the offshore contingent well. The provision to be able to mount a CIWS would be necessary if they are to be also used in "semi-hot deployment". This means that they do not need to carry a CIWS all the time but could rotate when necessary. Also we should see the purchase of different container mounted mission systems such as MCM. There is the provision on the P60's for this but we do need to get the mission modules.

One area that is often overlooked is the inshore mission with the standard excuse of the weather and that we need o big boats! This is true for offshore but the inshore and especially the area between us and the UK does not always require a 2000t ship. When the UK leaves the EU this will be come a major mission area and as the vessels that are of interest will be less than 500t (fishing boats, pleasure craft, smugglers) we should also consider having some smaller vessels 500t-700t to patrol these waters. Two could be based in Dublin and 2 in Rosslare.

As already noted above the investment is not limited to ships but also aircraft, for the MRV if we get 3 then we will need 6-8 MH60/NH90 helicopters to enable them to reach their full potential. The same goes for MPA's, today we have two part-time MPA's as they also have to do the air transport role. If we are serious then we need 4-6 MPA's just to keep a constant surveillance going. Two should be equipped for ASW as currently we have nothing to track submarines transiting in our waters, or the dragging of a trawler to the depths.

Now how to pay for this, well best would be an establishment and budget uplift to cover it. But if not then we need to have a major shift in our defence posture, away from land towards the sea. As we have discussed elsewhere there is no land threat to the state and we rely upon the sea and air channels for our well being. Therefore the NS should become the primary service in the DF with the Air Corp supporting the NS more than the Army. The Army itself should be reduced to 1/3 of the defence budget, to better balance the different services. This would most likely mean a reduction to 2 battalions rather than 2 brigades but if we are serious we must set priorities. I would not like to see the Army further reduced but if the politicians are unwilling to increase spending to the necessary levels then they should have the balls to make the right allocations.

paul g
11th April 2017, 10:57
I think you've got three different and important points there.
Agreed, we can't talk about multi crew ships if you barely have one crew per vessel to start with.
Our current role is fishery protection/ policing in rough waters and the vessels are armed for that.
If we need multi-role vessels, we don't have them. Our vessels are armed for the single role you have defined and cannot venture towards hostile environments without better equipped vessels to protect them or even detect the danger.


The vessels are actually over armed for pure fisheries protection.

Marine Scotland's ships for example dont carry any arms

ancientmariner
11th April 2017, 13:08
The Scottish Fishery Protection Agency ( SFPA ) have the available weight of the RN for PROTECT and DEFEND. We are an element of the Defence Forces and as such need to be prepared to also Defend , Protect , and support. FP is a chapter in our overall role. Our overall problem is where next with expansion , capacity , and capability. Do we need more room , another base, and more modern firepower and associated systems.

Sparky42
11th April 2017, 13:26
The vessels are actually over armed for pure fisheries protection.

Marine Scotland's ships for example dont carry any arms

Though the RN Rivers which also do Fisheries are armed to some degree, so it all depends on the nation/force I suppose.

DeV
11th April 2017, 13:43
All the vessels are multi-role, there abilities in some areas may be constrained but they are definitely multi-role. They are able to do most of the roles assigned to varying degrees.

I absolutely agree that the OPVs need as a absolute minimum the ability to detect threats, the add onto that is passive defence, the higher end of what in an ideal world is active defence. The idea of a number of frigates type vessels able to conduct combat in all spheres is pie in the sky, the NS would become a 2 ship navy to pay for them (never mind man them).

The NS sensors and weapons will of course feed into the threat assessment. If we are looking at a 10%+ chance of being engaged and we don't have suitable vessels - then preventative measures need to be taken (non-depoyment, keep xx miles offshore, deploy with other assets, etc).

Let's remember how the DF is paying for the new ships - they aren't replacing people who are leaving and the wages aren't being increased (yet). In the case of the NS, operational outputs (ie ships going to sea) are effected by that.

There isn't really a requirement IMHO to have 2 MRVs for operational and financial reasons. Crossover 131L is big enough, above that level and your wasting finite resources, and you have a better chance of it being properly equipped. You don't necessarily have to have it with an organic helo as you could operate with other partners.

Inshore work with what the CPVs are for.

paul g
11th April 2017, 15:13
The armament on the ns vessels are a realistic fit for vessels of their type and the threat level in Irish waters. Which is where they're supposed to serve, and are over kill for fisheries protection.

paul g
11th April 2017, 17:01
Some of the posts here are total parody, like it or not and I'd join tomorrow, but we're not nato members, and there is no real maratime threat to Irish waters. The armament fit on the Opv compares well and often exceeds to other ships of their size and type in European nations.

As for a bigger fleet, a reality check, were more than likely going to get a larger vessel that will be able to carry out hadr missions, not reenact ISO jima

EUFighter
11th April 2017, 19:16
As for a bigger fleet, a reality check, were more than likely going to get a larger vessel that will be able to carry out hadr missions, not reenact ISO jima

I think you mean Iwo Jima where the Americans had over 450 ships and 60,000 marines, it would take one hell of a budget uplift for us to be able to re-enact that!
The force included 17 carriers, 8 battleships, 16 cruisers and the rest a mix of destroyers and amphibious ships.

The real Jack
11th April 2017, 20:16
I think you mean Iwo Jima where the Americans had over 450 ships and 60,000 marines, it would take one hell of a budget uplift for us to be able to re-enact that!
The force included 17 carriers, 8 battleships, 16 cruisers and the rest a mix of destroyers and amphibious ships.

ISO jima was a US seaborne replenishment mission where they delivered thousands of ISO containers to stretched US ground forces....

ancientmariner
11th April 2017, 20:27
Realism is planning to deal with asymmetric threats. Some years ago we were dealing with attempts at major arms smuggling from the middle east and the United States ,and also some drugs smuggling from the Caribbean. Such interdiction can only be carried out by a ship of state whose Crew are under Military discipline and whose officers are commissioned officers of that state. In Fishery protection , a vessel failing to stop , can be progressively fired on , to gain compliance by Main Armament. The only gloss on our armament are two 20mm and a group of 12.7mms. At this point in time anybody out there with a hand/shoulder fired ASM/ATkM is a major threat. We must counter modern threats at the required stand off ranges or we will one day be in deep doo doo.

DeV
11th April 2017, 23:17
Look at the RNZN they are getting:

A replenishment ship with hospital capability (2 beds role 1), freight capability (12 TEUs), small crew (64+), helo capability (including hanger for NH90), 2 RAS rigs and it is going to be an "Environship". It is also winterised and class 6 Antarctic capable. All that with minimal weapons for €323 million (the winterisation only accounts for around €42 million.

They are also getting a "Littoral Ops Support Capability" vessel for diving & salvage, mine clearance, hydrographic survey and transporting up to 50 troops. It's based on a commercial offshore vessel with military capabilities in a medium threat environment (with minimalist weapons). It will have a moon pool, ROV and helo deck.

EUFighter
12th April 2017, 16:30
In the last few years the US has started to encounter drug smuggling subs. A few private people here in the home of the U-boat have for legal purposes built something rather high tech. In the cases someone had an alternative (South american) use could we detect and engage such an Objekt? Enjoy the video.http://youtu.be/zUUenrEwbRQ

Sparky42
12th April 2017, 16:34
In the last few years the US has started to encounter drug smuggling subs. A few private people here in the home of the U-boat have for legal purposes built something rather high tech. In the cases someone had an alternative (South american) use could we detect and engage such an Objekt? Enjoy the video.http://youtu.be/zUUenrEwbRQ

From memory the majority of those the US have encountered have been "semi submersible" rather than full up Subs, though without question there's strong movement towards that, however I have no idea if any of those designs would be feasible for TransAtlantic operations. As for solutions to detection, from memory there's been recent movement with ISO container mounted Towed Array's.

ancientmariner
12th April 2017, 17:34
From memory the majority of those the US have encountered have been "semi submersible" rather than full up Subs, though without question there's strong movement towards that, however I have no idea if any of those designs would be feasible for TransAtlantic operations. As for solutions to detection, from memory there's been recent movement with ISO container mounted Towed Array's.

There is no reason, with training , why we couldn't operate manned coastal submersible craft , as well as ROV's. Naval Services can do most things , in every dimension , given the support and trust required. We can keep ships on station for up to 3 + months , unsupported from Base , carrying out it's assigned tasks , and sustaining thousands of migrants while in our care.

Sparky42
12th April 2017, 17:47
There is no reason, with training , why we couldn't operate manned coastal submersible craft , as well as ROV's. Naval Services can do most things , in every dimension , given the support and trust required. We can keep ships on station for up to 3 + months , unsupported from Base , carrying out it's assigned tasks , and sustaining thousands of migrants while in our care.

I wasn't talking about us using them, I was talking about us stopping anyone using them (for whatever reason), that being said, I have no idea why you would want to waste budgets on manned coastal sub's? There's zero call for them, and I have no idea what being able to operate in the Med (out of Allied bases in permissive environments) has to do with the question.

DeV
12th April 2017, 20:46
There is definitely a need for the deployment of ROVs for mine/CIED, ATCP, SAR etc

Whatever about macro subs/semi-subs, macro torpedoes have definitely come here

Sparky42
12th April 2017, 20:51
There is definitely a need for the deployment of ROVs for mine/CIED, ATCP, SAR etc

I totally agree with you in that regard, you've listed plenty of areas where they would benefit and for mine/CIED I'd see if we could start working with EUBG members to grow knowledge for the potential Peacock replacement class going forward. But manned Coastal subs don't make any sense to me.

DeV
12th April 2017, 21:07
Thing is it we get a MCMV as a CPV, it will be slow, small, lower level of armament and probably crammed

Sparky42
12th April 2017, 21:18
Thing is it we get a MCMV as a CPV, it will be slow, small, lower level of armament and probably crammed

I suppose a couple of things, there's a newer vessels that are larger (some larger than the Peacock's), though certainly slower and the point about armament. I still have no idea exactly how it's suggested that a CPV can be an MCMV, however surely having some personnel assigned to current units would be beneficial in either trying to figure it out, or to understand that they won't mix?

DeV
12th April 2017, 21:52
I suppose a couple of things, there's a newer vessels that are larger (some larger than the Peacock's), though certainly slower and the point about armament. I still have no idea exactly how it's suggested that a CPV can be an MCMV, however surely having some personnel assigned to current units would be beneficial in either trying to figure it out, or to understand that they won't mix?

Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs

Sparky42
12th April 2017, 23:05
Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs

I'm not arguing that we need or will get CPV's, I'm wondering how when you look at the specs of MCMV's (which don't lend themselves to the CPV role) the idea has come about that we can fit something like the CPV's with the capability. Though the other question I guess I have is are there any current/near future designs on the market that meet the CPV spec (speed, tonnage, 76mm)?

na grohmiti
12th April 2017, 23:11
Because we will be replacing the Peacocks with CPVs with C-Mine/CIED capability.

Why will we be buying CPVs? Because we need CPVs

Do we need CPVs? Has much of the work traditionally done by CPVs now done by other agencies? Can the remaining CPV Naval work be done by OPVs with longer range RhIBs?

DeV
12th April 2017, 23:46
I'm not arguing that we need or will get CPV's, I'm wondering how when you look at the specs of MCMV's (which don't lend themselves to the CPV role) the idea has come about that we can fit something like the CPV's with the capability. Though the other question I guess I have is are there any current/near future designs on the market that meet the CPV spec (speed, tonnage, 76mm)?you suggested that a CPV can be a MCMV

I disagree


Do we need CPVs? Has much of the work traditionally done by CPVs now done by other agencies? Can the remaining CPV Naval work be done by OPVs with longer range RhIBs?

I agree (but this agree to use other agencies, the NS provides VFM

ancientmariner
13th April 2017, 09:33
I wasn't talking about us using them, I was talking about us stopping anyone using them (for whatever reason), that being said, I have no idea why you would want to waste budgets on manned coastal sub's? There's zero call for them, and I have no idea what being able to operate in the Med (out of Allied bases in permissive environments) has to do with the question.

We are a nation on an Island in the Eastern Atlantic with a limited surveillance capability in most dimensions but particularly Air and sub-sea. Over the years we have developed a surface fleet mostly by chance or whatever was available, such as left over craft post 1920's, then MTB's, then 3 Corvettes, then a hired in trawler,then 3 Coastal Minesweepers, then our own 5 build fleet from Verholme, then accidentally 2 Peacocks , and now 6 OPV's of two classes. Our plans going forward have not being constant, we are continually dismantling capability , but are left with skilled willing seamen waiting for a balanced Navy. Why not ASW, MCM,AAW, and SUBs. Combat and Naval Firepower is the forever mandate of all Navies, the rest, such as fishery protection, ATCP, etc. is the training ground to hone seagoing skills while doing necessary policing of our Sea Areas.

DeV
13th April 2017, 11:30
We are a nation on an Island in the Eastern Atlantic with a limited surveillance capability in most dimensions but particularly Air and sub-sea. Over the years we have developed a surface fleet mostly by chance or whatever was available, such as left over craft post 1920's, then MTB's, then 3 Corvettes, then a hired in trawler,then 3 Coastal Minesweepers, then our own 5 build fleet from Verholme, then accidentally 2 Peacocks , and now 6 OPV's of two classes. Our plans going forward have not being constant, we are continually dismantling capability , but are left with skilled willing seamen waiting for a balanced Navy. Why not ASW, MCM,AAW, and SUBs. Combat and Naval Firepower is the forever mandate of all Navies, the rest, such as fishery protection, ATCP, etc. is the training ground to hone seagoing skills while doing necessary policing of our Sea Areas.

I absolutely agree about plans and it is across the public service.

However, the threat is low, the costs are high and defence is not a priority for either Government or the taxpayer.

We do need at least the ability to monitor the passage of submarines (as a minimum) but you do not need submarines to do that

The real Jack
13th April 2017, 12:21
Will we get some CVNs to cover the SSNs launching from the secret base in Foynes?? Read over post #78 again!

ancientmariner
13th April 2017, 12:47
The ultimate control of sea lanes and Surveillance, reconnaissance , Interdiction within it, is the bailiwick of submarines such as the Swedish Gotland class with AIP. They have only 5 boats which has the US Navy agog after losing a Nuclear Carrier on paper more than once. we do need a sub hunt capability with an edge.

The real Jack
13th April 2017, 14:44
We don't even have heli's on our ships, crawl before you walk.

Graylion
13th April 2017, 15:01
As a minimum 2 MRV such as the Crossover 131 Combatant or Absalon Class with associated helicopter either MH60 or NH90. Two is the absolute minimum to have one available at all time, better would 3-4. These would cover the combatant part of the NS mission, provide a better platform for humanitarian support and be able to lift and support the army (better a marine battalion/company).

Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.


The current P50/P60's cover most of the home water missions although a sensor suite upgrade along with a modern C3 system would be necessary. 2 more hulls to add to the current fleet would balance up the offshore contingent well. The provision to be able to mount a CIWS would be necessary if they are to be also used in "semi-hot deployment". This means that they do not need to carry a CIWS all the time but could rotate when necessary. Also we should see the purchase of different container mounted mission systems such as MCM. There is the provision on the P60's for this but we do need to get the mission modules.

CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.



One area that is often overlooked is the inshore mission with the standard excuse of the weather and that we need o big boats! This is true for offshore but the inshore and especially the area between us and the UK does not always require a 2000t ship. When the UK leaves the EU this will be come a major mission area and as the vessels that are of interest will be less than 500t (fishing boats, pleasure craft, smugglers) we should also consider having some smaller vessels 500t-700t to patrol these waters. Two could be based in Dublin and 2 in Rosslare.

I like this idea

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 15:11
The ultimate control of sea lanes and Surveillance, reconnaissance , Interdiction within it, is the bailiwick of submarines such as the Swedish Gotland class with AIP. They have only 5 boats which has the US Navy agog after losing a Nuclear Carrier on paper more than once. we do need a sub hunt capability with an edge.

Every Allied SSK nation has claimed to kill a CVN at some point during exercises, of course there's no way to know in reality just how accurate that is, for the simple reason that SSK's even with AIP are really "mobile Minefields" that require the enemy to cooperate in positioning. It's beyond "Hovertank" nonsense to suggest them.

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 15:18
Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.

Do the 139's have any of the maritime systems needed? Salt corrosion protection, safety features, landing modifications? More over they carry none of the Martime control features (Sonar/Weapon fits) of the true Maritime Helicopters so other than just flying around with a door gunner what value would they add? The NH90 has issues (pretty much ever system does) but as far as I know it is being worked through for fixes.


CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.

Do consider that for MCM many of the current/future systems are "drone" based rather than the conventional systems of the past, that's not to say that the 60's would be ideal but could have investment in that area if we wanted.



I like this idea

In terms of Brexit, I think it's too early to tell what exactly we'll need, I mean there's a good chance the NI/ROI water board is going to need patrolling as well for example, wonder what those custom boats are doing?

ancientmariner
13th April 2017, 16:35
Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 17:37
Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.

Which that SSK's have limited ranges/capabilities compared to SSN's, that USN CVN battlegroups in a true combat situation might not be as obliging as to sail into an area with known SSK units without the area already being swept? Like I said I've read of everyone from the Canadians to the Australian's getting Mission Kills on CVN's with SSK's, but there is no real meteric to determine if that's how things would play out. SSK's are ideal for "chokepoint areas" where forces have to come to them, we aren't one of those positions, nor are we going to be doing the "sneaky shite" that SSK's do.

Moreover yes it is stupid to be suggesting we need/move towards Sub forces. There are plenty of major NATO and otherwise nations that struggle massively with sustaining SSK forces, suggesting we should have them is Walter Mitty nonsense.

na grohmiti
13th April 2017, 18:14
If we do dare to go down the Naval Heli route then surely anything we get should be a tried and tested, widely used type. When the Kiwis got their OPVs, they stuck with the Seasprites, whith whom they had familiarity on the ANZAC frigates, even though their neighbours were binning their Seasprites and going for S70s instead.

DeV
13th April 2017, 18:26
Don't limit the choices of helicopter. The NH90 is a turkey that the RNlN doesn't even allow to fly over saltwater. The MH90 is OK, but I'd go Cougar for instance. Or move the AW139s to the NS and get the Army some decent choppers.



CIWS can be handled by converting the 76mm to STRALES. MCM is a role that needs an amagentic hull - I am not sure the P60s could find more than one mine each. Decent radar would be needed. TRS-4D R or Saab Sea Giraffe 4a spring to mind.




I like this idea
I don't know a lot about Strales but sounds good to reduce costs (but your still probably going to need an AD radar)


Do the 139's have any of the maritime systems needed? Salt corrosion protection, safety features, landing modifications? More over they carry none of the Martime control features (Sonar/Weapon fits) of the true Maritime Helicopters so other than just flying around with a door gunner what value would they add? The NH90 has issues (pretty much ever system does) but as far as I know it is being worked through for fixes.

Do consider that for MCM many of the current/future systems are "drone" based rather than the conventional systems of the past, that's not to say that the 60's would be ideal but could have investment in that area if we wanted.



In terms of Brexit, I think it's too early to tell what exactly we'll need, I mean there's a good chance the NI/ROI water board is going to need patrolling as well for example, wonder what those custom boats are doing?

I very much doubt that BREXIT will require lots of smaller patrol boats (much easier to use an unapproved road), the only places may be on the high seas (depending on the fisheries aspects) and Rockall.

IMHO MCMVs aren't suited to the CPV role but a suitably equipped could do some MCMV work (with limitations).

A major issue with the NH90 is that every user has a different fit.


Not accurate in concept or in the use of submarines. Read a few manuals . We leave armour , Hover or otherwise, to the ground forces.

Hover subs

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 18:35
If we do dare to go down the Naval Heli route then surely anything we get should be a tried and tested, widely used type. When the Kiwis got their OPVs, they stuck with the Seasprites, whith whom they had familiarity on the ANZAC frigates, even though their neighbours were binning their Seasprites and going for S70s instead.

To be honest "tried and tested, widely used type" should be the byword for our procurement instead of "bespoke". So yeah something that's widely used (I'd look at European given global events) but I'd also look at a larger combined order, ie something for the Navy but with a variant for the Army that is deployable for EUBG/UN operations. Also from memory the Australian's tried upgrading their Seasprites and had to abandon the project, whereas the Kiwi's stuck with the bog standard that they already had.

na grohmiti
13th April 2017, 20:03
To be honest "tried and tested, widely used type" should be the byword for our procurement instead of "bespoke". So yeah something that's widely used (I'd look at European given global events) but I'd also look at a larger combined order, ie something for the Navy but with a variant for the Army that is deployable for EUBG/UN operations. Also from memory the Australian's tried upgrading their Seasprites and had to abandon the project, whereas the Kiwi's stuck with the bog standard that they already had.

Yes and no. The Kiwis were using the Kaman like the aussies, from the introduction of the ANZAC. Australia wanted to upgrade their Seasprites, but there was serious delays and cost overruns, and they cancelled the upgrade. NZ then bought the converted aussie airframes.

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 20:20
Yes and no. The Kiwis were using the Kaman like the aussies, from the introduction of the ANZAC. Australia wanted to upgrade their Seasprites, but there was serious delays and cost overruns, and they cancelled the upgrade. NZ then bought the converted aussie airframes.

Ah, was that it, I remembered that there was some cock up from the Australian side, smart buy from the Kiwi's so.

ancientmariner
13th April 2017, 23:16
This thread should be kept exclusively naval with a clear understanding of the naval contribution to defence. I know submarines are expensive such as Scorpene at 450m USD. Saying it isn't as good as an SSN is only true for maximum ranges but Scorpene has a usable range of 6,500nm. With airless propulsion the SSK is a deadly foe. My view is if we are going to use and guide UUV's then why not also use a manned version to gain the concepts of underwater operations such as recently at Blackrock.
As regards Strales and CIWS they are not really comparable , the former is going to deal with threatening targets at longer range at up to 120rpm, while the CIWS will hose its targets until they no longer paint on tracking radar at rates around 4,500rpm. It's not intended our ships would have a retained helicopter but rather a copious flight deck with fuelling and assist start after shut down.

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 23:34
This thread should be kept exclusively naval with a clear understanding of the naval contribution to defence. I know submarines are expensive such as Scorpene at 450m USD. Saying it isn't as good as an SSN is only true for maximum ranges but Scorpene has a usable range of 6,500nm. With airless propulsion the SSK is a deadly foe. My view is if we are going to use and guide UUV's then why not also use a manned version to gain the concepts of underwater operations such as recently at Blackrock.
As regards Strales and CIWS they are not really comparable , the former is going to deal with threatening targets at longer range at up to 120rpm, while the CIWS will hose its targets until they no longer paint on tracking radar at rates around 4,500rpm. It's not intended our ships would have a retained helicopter but rather a copious flight deck with fuelling and assist start after shut down.

Wait, what connection is UUV's and ROV's (the second used at Blackrock) to SSK's? An SSK would not be used in such an area and isn't intended for SAR. As to the costs it's much more than just the sticker price, there's the increase in training equipment needed, payment into rescue support capability, significant increase in skill sets/equipment in the dockyard to support an SSK maintenance regime (or send it abroad), also at least 3 would have to be bought to be viable as a system. Even if you just bought 1 (which wouldn't make sense) then I'd be surprised at the end of the day if you got much change out of 700m-1 billion when all was said and done.

As to capabilities, an SSK's "usuable range" isn't the issue, the issue is it's charge capacity/rates, that's my point around "mobile minefields/chokepoints", unless an enemy force obliges by coming to them, then the SSK has to burn valuable charge to move at speed to alter it's position, which when you add in the noise of snorkling then SSK's do have limits. Moreover there does seem to be some disagreement with AIP with the new Japanese subs not mounting them. Take for example using them in a defensive situation along the West Coast (just suppose), we also lack enough long range MPA or Sat surveillance to tell us an enemy course/position/speed, so an SSK would most likely spend a significant amount of it's battery trying to maneuver against a force that can pick it's attack angle from all of the Atlantic. It's just not credible.

It's not credible to look at either a) where we are and b) what we should be looking to develop and grow and then jump to "we should have subs". As I've pointed out there are far larger nations with Sub experience that have/had significant issues (both mechanical and personnel) in operations of subs. Can we stick to sensible and realistic

ancientmariner
14th April 2017, 11:42
I never said we should buy SSK's. I am interested in increasing our underwater capabilities to included manned submersibles for underwater work not unsimilar to Blackrock or for covert work. We have put divers down below standard depths, so an ability to visual survey areas pre diving would be an asset. These commercial level subs are usually crewed by 2/4 crew and observers with external handling and recovery equipment .
Long range SSK's or SSN's do not need continual guidance other than their on board interfaces with designated Satellite systems. They have long range passive acoustic detection equipment for targets or just maintain a launching profile if they are an SSBM type. The MPA's ,if you have them ,are looking for other peoples Submarines. The reason the British MPA's used to survey our West Coast is that it is Submarine Alley from the North of Scotland to Mid Atlantic for their own SSN's and those of the Russian Navy.
Continual negativity will leave our navy short of meeting our stated mission in full. We can never be effective unless we can detect and respond. It is as simple as that.

DeV
14th April 2017, 13:35
I never said we should buy SSK's. I am interested in increasing our underwater capabilities to included manned submersibles for underwater work not unsimilar to Blackrock or for covert work. We have put divers down below standard depths, so an ability to visual survey areas pre diving would be an asset. These commercial level subs are usually crewed by 2/4 crew and observers with external handling and recovery equipment .
Long range SSK's or SSN's do not need continual guidance other than their on board interfaces with designated Satellite systems. They have long range passive acoustic detection equipment for targets or just maintain a launching profile if they are an SSBM type. The MPA's ,if you have them ,are looking for other peoples Submarines. The reason the British MPA's used to survey our West Coast is that it is Submarine Alley from the North of Scotland to Mid Atlantic for their own SSN's and those of the Russian Navy.
Continual negativity will leave our navy short of meeting our stated mission in full. We can never be effective unless we can detect and respond. It is as simple as that.

Safer (and much cheaper) to use ROVs

ancientmariner
14th April 2017, 20:34
Going for one mode of investigation over another is often a false choice. In any environmental survey above or below surface it is beneficial to do both a mix of manned and unmanned sorties to build up a complete knowledge of the environment and the associated technologies to explore it safely and completely. I am happy to close the argument and leave it to the Naval Diving section. The sea was never a safe place for mariners.

DeV
14th April 2017, 21:54
Going for one mode of investigation over another is often a false choice. In any environmental survey above or below surface it is beneficial to do both a mix of manned and unmanned sorties to build up a complete knowledge of the environment and the associated technologies to explore it safely and completely. I am happy to close the argument and leave it to the Naval Diving section. The sea was never a safe place for mariners.

which is why NSDS have a ROV