Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Self Defence on UN MISSIONS?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Fair enough, and of course what you say is correct. But any naval unit operating in potential hostile waters must have a minimal level of self defense capabilities. For sure, the overall AAW or ASW responsibility may lie with other units, but what about attacks that beat the umbrella or if the Irish unit gets separated. The problem with naval units which become too specialised and totally dependent on the proper mix of capabilities is that they can only operate in such combined formations and when isolated become a liability. The RN found out that in the Falklands.

    I wouldn't suggest, and I don't think anyone is, that our units become highly capable multi-function units as these are beyond us both in size and cost, but a minimal level of capability is not unrealistic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bravo20
    replied
    The counter argument is that we don't go on UN missions alone. We are usually part of a larger group, with different countries being tasked with different functions (such as logistics, air cover, sea cover etc). Should one of the mission member units get into trouble the others provide support. The prime example is Ireland providing a force mobile reserve for Liberia, its role is to support other member countries, when it needed naval support the Dutch provided it. Similarly in Kosovo Ireland provided the force road logistics unit (supporting a wide range of different countries, including US forces), this was supplemental to each units own transport capabilities.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I know that we are a small nation with a very limited budget, but the problem with armies/navies/defence forces etc is that when you need them, it is generally too late to try to build them, you really have to be prepared in advance.

    The P-50 class do look well and in terms of representing our NS while abroad, they will at least look the part. However, as with the Eithne before them (and even the Peacocks), they are particularly lightly armed. We should really have made provision for at least some self defense capabilities, even if they were disembarked and mothballed.

    Some would point out that it is in the nature of our country and forces that we are not offensive minded. Yet our naval weapons (guns and MGs) are offensive weapons. Our ships have tha capability to inflict damage but not to protect themselves from any kind of realistic threat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goldie fish
    replied
    If they can mount RAM on the stern of tiny German Fast Patrol boats,I'm sure they can be mounted on the Back of the P50s.

    I'm guessing here,but I imagine we don't have all the things you ask of is that
    (a) The Government were not willing to pay for them
    (b) The NS knew (a) and didnt ask.
    They were glad to have any ships under them. Nobody in Haulbowline ever expected we would get 2 ships delivered in short succession.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sarsfield
    started a topic Self Defence on UN MISSIONS?

    Self Defence on UN MISSIONS?

    As we are all aware there is nothing wrong with the people in the Naval Service, it's just that both they and the people who support this great board have failed to raise public awareness and thereby influence politicians to change their ways.

    Until we do, we are not going to see the planned incremental increase in expenditure on ships, people and equipment that is now critically overdue. By imposing a ship limit of eight the government have in reality fixed a minimum investment which means that any other requirements will have to be met from other departments. This silent death by stealth has already begun with the purchase of survey and patrol vessels for other departments.

    Unfortunately the politicians forget this when the prestige and glory that shines on them when they commit our forces to UN missions sends our emaciated forces abroad.

    The P-50 Class are constructed unable to take the extra weight of the GAMBO1 and are restricted to FN 0.5 mgs. The fact that money couldn't even be found for a new Oto Melara 3" for ROISIN and we had to beg the RN for their sole remaining instructional Oto Melara, clearly shows the apathy that politicians have for the Navy.

    One question, to those that might know, is it possible to fit a CIWS to the rear of the P-50 Class, X Position? The reason that I ask is that the General Dynamics Sea Ram has its own detection and fire control integrated system therefore negating the expense of a search and track air detection radar. With 10 ready to fire Rolling Air Frame Missiles this would give future naval UN ops a highly capable defence against missiles, helicopters and attack aircaft. Admittedly, the greatess threat would be from shore based anti tank missiles but it would raise morale and belief in the ships capabilities.

    Question number 2. Why have no naval vessels been equipped with Passive Defensive Systems? Will this not be necessary if the service is sent on Petersburg Tasks or UN anti piracy patrols off West Africa?

    PS Can no-one hack into the ***********and order 4 Meko A-200 Class Frigates for the Navy? Sorry the frustration is just getting to me!!!!!

    Sarsfield
Working...
X