Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPV Replacement

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

  • ancientmariner
    replied
    This is a project to develop or explore by trial an autonomous system to hunt and deal with specific mines or underwater ordnance. In a major conflict with many instances to be dealt with, and under time pressure, i believe that conventional systems will still be very relevant and as I said before the moored mine in 100's are not yet gone away, as they are a cheap form of effective denial and territorial protection.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    https://des.mod.uk/des-contract-auto...er-royal-navy/

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    https://www.ecagroup.com/en/solution...500-mothership

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    I don't know where they'll fit any extra equipment on the tripartites. They are small vessels, with very little open deck space.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    There has been for a long time , a shift in measures to counteract influence mines of all types. The Minehunter vessel became supreme with use of stand off methods such as Clearance divers and then unmanned units with remote planting of counter charges. This ECA group is packaging a modern version of what is being done already. It would be of interest to those adapting a Countermeasures programme or setting up a new one. The unanswered question is, are Field mines redundant for evermore? Will Defence in depth require nations to sow moored mines in defence of harbours, bays, and beaches. Are Minesweepers totally redundant?
    I am very interested in the Australians fitting inertial navigation on their new OPV's to make them independent of GNSS if such satellites were impaired. We should consider such systems as the day's of Differential GPS are numbered.
    Basically all nations are replacing there MCMVs over time so the equipment is containerised and deployable from a vessel of opportunity (whatever is around that the kit will fit on).

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Latvian’s are removing much of the equipment from their MCMVs and replacing it with modular

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/defpost....sures-vessels/
    There has been for a long time , a shift in measures to counteract influence mines of all types. The Minehunter vessel became supreme with use of stand off methods such as Clearance divers and then unmanned units with remote planting of counter charges. This ECA group is packaging a modern version of what is being done already. It would be of interest to those adapting a Countermeasures programme or setting up a new one. The unanswered question is, are Field mines redundant for evermore? Will Defence in depth require nations to sow moored mines in defence of harbours, bays, and beaches. Are Minesweepers totally redundant?
    I am very interested in the Australians fitting inertial navigation on their new OPV's to make them independent of GNSS if such satellites were impaired. We should consider such systems as the day's of Differential GPS are numbered.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Latvian’s are removing much of the equipment from their MCMVs and replacing it with modular

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/defpost....sures-vessels/

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Watch the Officer Clubs talks they are vital

    The Programme for Government says a lot but it is the ToR that says what the Commission can actually look into:
    The terms of Reference using terms such as non-aligned militarily, and participative multilateralism needs further clarity as some of those in that club are current engaged in vicious wars. In Africa there are 53 members of NAM. In Asia there are 39 members including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq , Syria and Yemen. In Latin America and Caribbean there are 26 members including Colombia and Venezuela. there are only 2 members in Europe including Belarus. There are 17 countries with observer status including CHINA.
    I really conclude we are not saying what we mean or we don't know what we are saying. If there is an idea to deconstruct military units then when it is over we may discover vital parts missing.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    Key will not be so much the ToRs but rather the Chairperson and make-up of the commission, every set of ToRs can be interpreted differently bu different people. And how do we remember commissions, by the name of the Chairperson! It is that person who will in the end have to sell the results to the government and the wider public. So depending on who is selected we will early-on be able to predict the outcome.
    Watch the Officer Clubs talks they are vital

    The Programme for Government says a lot but it is the ToR that says what the Commission can actually look into:

    Defence
    Irish people take great pride in our Permanent Defence Forces and the men and women who serve this country with pride and distinction. Since first deploying, the Defence Forces have the longest unbroken record of overseas service with the United Nations of any country, during this time the nature of conflict has presented new challenges. We will continue this proud record and ensure that the Defence Forces are suitably resourced to partake in such service recognising the new challenges facing the global community.
    Peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts are at the core of the international reputation of the Defence Forces. With climate change becoming an increasing security threat across the world and a significant
    129

    factor in the incidences of war, famine, forced migration and disaster management, we recognise the vital role the Defence Forces have in addressing these challenges.
    Commission on the Defence Forces
    In order to meet the medium and longer term defence requirements of the State an independent Commission will be established. This Commission will undertake a comprehensive review which will include the following matters:
    • Arrangements for the effective defence of the country at land and sea.
    • Structures for governance, joint command and control structures.
    • The brigade structure.
    • Pay and allowances and composition of the Defence Forces.
    • Recruitment. retention and career progression.
    • The contribution of the Reserve Defence Forces, including its legislation and Defence Forces
    regulations governing it and whether specialists from the RDF should be able to serve overseas.
    The Commission will contain a wide variety of expertise such as management, human resources, academia, law, public service, as well as members with external military expertise from countries similar in size to Ireland and also from states that like Ireland are non-aligned militarily.
    We will consult widely on the terms of reference for the Commission which will be established by end of 2020 with a mandate to report within twelve months.
    The outcome of this review will remain grounded in a policy of active military neutrality and participative multilateralism through the United Nations and European Union.
    Upon completion of the Commissions work, a permanent pay review body will be established, reflecting the unique nature of military service in the context of the public service. All recommendations by the Commission or the successor body and their implementation must be consistent with national public sector wage policy.
    Overseas operations and international co-operation
    The Government will ensure that all overseas operations will be carried out in line with our position of military neutrality and will be subject to a triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil Eireann approval.
    Ireland’s participation in PESCO projects will be maintained on an ‘opt-in’ basis, with contributions being entirely voluntary. Any projects undertaken within PESCO will be approved by Cabinet and Dáil Éireann.
    The Government will not partake in projects which are not compatible with our policy of active military neutrality and non-membership of military alliances.
    Within the context of the European Peace Facility Ireland will not be part of decision making or funding for lethal force weapons for non-peacekeeping purposes.
    Additional actions
    We will:
    • Support the establishment of centres for retired members of the Defence Forces.
    130

    • Develop a new Institute for Peace Support and Leadership Training in the Curragh.
    • Ensure that all enlisted members of the Defence Forces have the same access to healthcare
    as officers do currently.
    • Amend the Organisation of Working Time Act bringing the Defence Forces within the scope of
    its provisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Well all know what the DF needs to efficiently succeed at its (current) missions

    Depends on the ToR of the Commission that mission and the strategic intend my change
    Key will not be so much the ToRs but rather the Chairperson and make-up of the commission, every set of ToRs can be interpreted differently bu different people. And how do we remember commissions, by the name of the Chairperson! It is that person who will in the end have to sell the results to the government and the wider public. So depending on who is selected we will early-on be able to predict the outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Well all know what the DF needs to efficiently succeed at its (current) missions

    Depends on the ToR of the Commission that mission and the strategic intend my change
    The Mission must always have the right tools and skills. When you go tilling ground you bring Fork, Spade, grubber, or tractor and plough for big jobs. Every job has a set of tools, our tool rack has many empty slots. All pointing to potential failure to achieve the Mission.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    During the deliberations of the Pre- Committee on Defence, the submissions by those tasked with carrying out the Defence Mission, must be crystal clear on the needs of all Defence units in order to implement the Mission effectively. The Status Quo plus pay rises will not of itself build an effective Defence Force. We must start acquiring the range of modern weapons systems, Naval, Army, and Air Corps, to fulfill the Mission. We must see, hear, and deal with all threats which implies an island surveillance system , in all dimensions, for a start. Coupled with target acquisition and weapon delivery systems by land ,Sea, and Air.
    Well all know what the DF needs to efficiently succeed at its (current) missions

    Depends on the ToR of the Commission that mission and the strategic intend my change

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Unless there is demand from the masses (ie the electorate, the politicans’ bosses) the TOR of the CoD will be far from transformative. They will decide what the CoD Discusses. Be under no illusions they only reason there is to be a CoD is due to lobbying.

    Like any report unless there is demands from the masses to implement it, the report will sit on a shelf (especially the case if it requires significant financial resources). The only other place that pressure can come from is our EU peers!

    In this country if you don’t lobby you don’t get even if there is a clear need.

    It may not be right but that is the way it is.



    Take it from someone who has had to put pressure on politicians provide school places for a local secondary school, there is a clear need for it, vital service etc.
    During the deliberations of the Pre- Committee on Defence, the submissions by those tasked with carrying out the Defence Mission, must be crystal clear on the needs of all Defence units in order to implement the Mission effectively. The Status Quo plus pay rises will not of itself build an effective Defence Force. We must start acquiring the range of modern weapons systems, Naval, Army, and Air Corps, to fulfill the Mission. We must see, hear, and deal with all threats which implies an island surveillance system , in all dimensions, for a start. Coupled with target acquisition and weapon delivery systems by land ,Sea, and Air.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    You are barking up the wrong tree, there will never be demand from "the masses". Defence is an insurance policy and like all insurance policies in this country unless you are forced to pay it most would prefer not too. Even with legal obligations such as with car insurance many do not. It is the task of those involved in the defence community to highlight the needs year after year, not just throw up the hands and accept scraps. All governments since the founding of the State have seen a need for a defence force, even when money was much tighter than today. But now we are reaching a stage where those forces are becoming no longer viable for the primary military mission that they have been assigned (as per mission statement).

    There is to be a Commission on Defence and it is the obligation of everyone who knows about, and care about the defence of the country to shout as loud as they can. It is not the masses that get heard but those who shout so loud as to drown out the opposition. In the past weeks it has often been said that this Commission is a once in a generation chance, I disagree, it is the last chance for a functioning military defence force. Unless the decline is reversed the military aspect will disappear within a generation or less. So the time is now here to get out and shout, to set out the stall for a proper defence force no matter what it costs. If that is not done then we can never expect someone else to come and do it for us.
    Unless there is demand from the masses (ie the electorate, the politicans’ bosses) the TOR of the CoD will be far from transformative. They will decide what the CoD Discusses. Be under no illusions they only reason there is to be a CoD is due to lobbying.

    Like any report unless there is demands from the masses to implement it, the report will sit on a shelf (especially the case if it requires significant financial resources). The only other place that pressure can come from is our EU peers!

    In this country if you don’t lobby you don’t get even if there is a clear need.

    It may not be right but that is the way it is.



    Take it from someone who has had to put pressure on politicians provide school places for a local secondary school, there is a clear need for it, vital service etc.
    Last edited by DeV; 19 September 2020, 16:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    All coastal radar is locally managed now, by whoever operates the local port. Some ports don't even use Radar any more, trusting well placed AIS receivers.
    Meanwhile travel up any of Europe's ports or waterways and regularly meet radar antennae as unobtrusive as navigation Buoys.
    Like everything else, we choose not to be able to afford it.
    At a National non-military level we have signed and issued SI covering VTS. As pointed out we rely heavily on the mandatory carriage of AIS transponders on most things above 24metres in length. A typical VTS where instructions and guidance is issued to vessels in close geographical waters , consists of Radar, CCTV in harbours, VHF Radar, and of course AIS. The Agency which is suppose to police compliance with the system is the ICG. Countries like France have overlapping Radar coverage all along their Channel and Atlantic Coasts with manned monitoring stations. If you deviate incorrectly in Traffic Zones , you will be overflown by a French Plane and instructed to correct your position. Likewise Dover and the English Coast have radar coverage and close monitoring. We tend to see nothing outside the gate of Lord Fitzgerald's house.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X