Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

navy

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

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.
    In passenger configuration, the AW139 also carries 12 passengers, plus crew. Three rows of seats 4 abreast. Not ideal for anyone other than someone with medium build, wearing shorts and T Shirt. (and having nothing in their pockets.)
    It reminds me of this clip.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      Be careful, the 5 is a French configuration, in the offshore support role it carries 14 passengers! It should be able to carry 8+2, the latter being gunners.
      Except The AW139 (or replacement) it isn’t intended for that kind of config - it is for tactical transport with kit

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Except The AW139 (or replacement) it isn’t intended for that kind of config - it is for tactical transport with kit
        Getting back to things Navy, I see the Goma Two are still waiting for DOD decisions. We in the military should work on the How and with What that the job could be done. By this time they should have been re-positioned to a friendlier country. In fact any of our 90m vessels could have been positioned off Tanzania by now if action was taken at first instance. Pick them up in a Tanzanian port and bring them home or drop them off in Malta or Cyprus and have the AC collect them with the CASA.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          In passenger configuration, the AW139 also carries 12 passengers, plus crew. Three rows of seats 4 abreast. Not ideal for anyone other than someone with medium build, wearing shorts and T Shirt. (and having nothing in their pockets.)
          It reminds me of this clip.
          Well leave the doors off and you could get a few more passengers in .
          Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            Getting back to things Navy, I see the Goma Two are still waiting for DOD decisions. We in the military should work on the How and with What that the job could be done. By this time they should have been re-positioned to a friendlier country. In fact any of our 90m vessels could have been positioned off Tanzania by now if action was taken at first instance. Pick them up in a Tanzanian port and bring them home or drop them off in Malta or Cyprus and have the AC collect them with the CASA.
            Or just use the Air Corps Learjet. It would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for the DoD bureaucrats.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
              Or just use the Air Corps Learjet. It would have been done and dusted by now if it wasn't for the DoD bureaucrats.
              For those interested it is 3000 nm to Port Said ( 8days transit from Cork) 1 day through the Suez, and another 7.5 days to Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania. Then back to Cyprus in 9 Days. If they left on the 1st May they would be in Cyprus today or early tomorrow 26th May and in Baldonnel the same day.

              Comment


              • Don't grey ships get priority transiting Suez also?
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  Don't grey ships get priority transiting Suez also?
                  Often smaller faster ships would go through in their own Convoy.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    Just pointing out that we have an accidental Navy that keeps changing operational profile every time we acquire new or replacement tonnage. The 1927 Conference was contentious on the Defended Ports issue but the Brits were offering "Imposing 800t 16kt minesweepers of the Irish County Class and would be quite suitable ceremonially and for your President's yacht" Like now, we had no money, and didn't take up the offer of the twin screw vessels. Those present were civil servants and Army Officers. We should have been asking the Brits for a couple of dozen training staff and officers to secund to Irish service and start MCM and ASW as proposed for the embryo service. Two Squadrons of the bigger vessels would have been a reasonable start.
                    Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
                    It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      To be successful smaller militaries need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel.
                      Fixed that for you and due to the small size of the DF and personnel turnover in the last 12 years it has become a major issue across the DF

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        Fixed that for you and due to the small size of the DF and personnel turnover in the last 12 years it has become a major issue across the DF
                        Agree PDF as a whole has been deconstructed however, despite C&S course, and SSC, my concern lies with the area of my former expertise. It is time to stop closing capability avenues and closing down functions at the whim of simpler less expensive choices. Defence and deterrence has to be on equal footing to HADR capability as on occasion disasters can also be man made.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          Agree PDF as a whole has been deconstructed however, despite C&S course, and SSC, my concern lies with the area of my former expertise. It is time to stop closing capability avenues and closing down functions at the whim of simpler less expensive choices. Defence and deterrence has to be on equal footing to HADR capability as on occasion disasters can also be man made.
                          Not necessarily what I mean. We have very well qualified people who have a long training lead time. The major issues are they leave the DF too soon, they get moved around too much (rotation, overseas, promotion, course, college, etc etc). That then leads to burnout, work-life balance issues, double/triple jobbing, etc. It also leads to a critical loss of experience and mentoring.

                          For example, we have people who have to transfer corps (And/or Bde) to get promoted

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            Not necessarily what I mean. We have very well qualified people who have a long training lead time. The major issues are they leave the DF too soon, they get moved around too much (rotation, overseas, promotion, course, college, etc etc). That then leads to burnout, work-life balance issues, double/triple jobbing, etc. It also leads to a critical loss of experience and mentoring.

                            For example, we have people who have to transfer corps (And/or Bde) to get promoted
                            I agree that all of those perchance happen in a volunteer service. Mil organisations were always expert in calculating requirements for person and machine, and provision for reserves , stores, and replenishment as it arises. Failure to see the inevitable and not understanding the loss of expertise and self worth also create conditions for personnel to move on or out. Promotion can be troublesome especially at higher levels where SO's from any Branch can go from a desk job to a Brigadier or higher.
                            Mentoring is a huge part of Naval Service life especially in matters of Safety and how things work that are not available for hands on experience ashore.
                            When a ship sails , peace or war, she is pretty well equipped equally at full operational levels. Everybody from junior to highest levels must tune in to how things work and learn to use and maintain them. It is important then that the Mission tools remain static, and be modernised as required, so that capability remains constant, at least. Binning hardware every decade or so leads to what we have now.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              Read a paper submitted to USNI about small Navies and a Need for a balanced force. The submission sees a need for forces at sea to act as a deterrent and to have an ability to keep sea lanes open. The agreed tasks are in the areas of Surface, Air, Submarine, and MCM with a range of platforms to undertake defensive tasks. We are the ultimate example of need in that we are totally surrounded by sea and heavily focused in location and capability. To be successful smaller navies need to pool training and tasks with another to maintain efforts . In our case, because knowledge was embedded in few personnel with access to a few platforms, when people and ships retired the Navy was literally destructured . Our political efforts since then was to put ships on the water with no particular capability, except for one, later de-classified.
                              It can and should be achieved by insisting on following the Mission come what may and that is the Duty of Command.
                              The current biggest treat to the development and integrity of the Irish Navy and the continued existence of the Maritime College of Ireland is the Cork Port Company and its unitary expansion plans in the smallest corner of Cork harbour. In their initial submission they included Haulbowline as an area of expansion, along with Marina point and Cork Dockyard. Even now the plan is right up to the boundary of the NMCI so that the work area will be next to classrooms. The Department responsible for Marine needs to take control and ensure equitable outcomes for sitting traditional tenants. The plans are minuscule when taken against international ship sizes, and constricted so, due to limited foreshore and accesses. Even a small modern port needs a kilometre of container berthage, more berthage for small coastal vessels, berthage for Cruise trade, berthage for official visiting ships of all types, and berths for recreational mariners. In the Far east quite modest countries have 2.5 miles of berthage. Between Cork and Waterford city we are scrapping that amount. Make Ireland Small again!!

                              Comment


                              • NMCI has another 15 years at least until Bovis PPP is up for renewal. Its strength lies that is in the heart of a working harbour, not buried in Bishopstown, as things used to be.
                                I don't know why you see the continued expansion of the port as a threat to it or the navy.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X