Thanks Thanks:  907
Likes Likes:  1,851
Dislikes Dislikes:  49
Page 106 of 114 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108 ... LastLast
Results 2,626 to 2,650 of 2841
  1. #2626
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Keep hitting them with the approved White Paper.
    Is that heavy enough? Maybe add some lead?

  2. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  3. #2627
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Is that heavy enough? Maybe add some lead?
    Take your point , however the White paper is prescriptive of intended development and we must keep pushing towards mentioned goals. i'm glad to see the purchase of two Airbus MPA type aircraft, even though they will be capable of the usual troop and VIP delivery. The Russians are up-arming OPV's with hypersonic missiles-there is every reason to believe ours are badly underarmed.

  4. #2628
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Take your point , however the White paper is prescriptive of intended development and we must keep pushing towards mentioned goals. i'm glad to see the purchase of two Airbus MPA type aircraft, even though they will be capable of the usual troop and VIP delivery. The Russians are up-arming OPV's with hypersonic missiles-there is every reason to believe ours are badly underarmed.
    Well, they are constabulary vessels. IMO there is no way Ireland can or will want to afford any kind of meaningful defence on its own. I would like us to act inside the EU frame work and focus on force multipliers. ISTAR, logistics (ships like the ELLIDA) etc. A brace of electronics birds like the RAF Ravens would be very useful and welcome everywhere for instance.
    Last edited by Graylion; 16th December 2019 at 04:00.

  5. #2629
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Take your point , however the White paper is prescriptive of intended development and we must keep pushing towards mentioned goals. i'm glad to see the purchase of two Airbus MPA type aircraft, even though they will be capable of the usual troop and VIP delivery. The Russians are up-arming OPV's with hypersonic missiles-there is every reason to believe ours are badly underarmed.
    The Russians have also had their only carrier have it's floating drydock sink under it and now has something reported to be up to a 600 square meter fire burning for most of a day... Maybe we don't follow the Russians?
    If we want warships, then pay for them, don't act like the Russians who don't care about their navy or crews and stick random weapon systems onto ships just so they can make a benefit out of the weakness they have.

  6. Likes Herald liked this post
  7. #2630
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,655
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the point made was not to be like Russia but to be ready to defend against this type of vessel. They happily sell their ships, fully equipped, to help destabilise other states where our ships may be working.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. Likes ias liked this post
  9. #2631
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I think the point made was not to be like Russia but to be ready to defend against this type of vessel. They happily sell their ships, fully equipped, to help destabilise other states where our ships may be working.
    Exactly. If we spend E 400m on 6 OPV's and 2 MPA's what will we spend to keep them safe and useful. If fisheries is the only use considered by the mandarins then we must continue to press hard for Defensive hardware and technology.

  10. Likes ias liked this post
  11. #2632
    Commandant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,848
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Well, they are constabulary vessels. IMO there is no way Ireland can or will want to afford any kind of meaningful defence on its own. I would like us to act inside the EU frame work and focus on force multipliers. ISTAR, logistics (ships like the ELLIDA) etc. A brace of electronics birds like the RAF Ravens would be very useful and welcome everywhere for instance.
    Ireland could afford a meaningful defence on its own, remember most effective defence is not about beating a potential aggressor but deterring them. As pointed out by many here and by even the current Taoiseach has said if we were to meet the 2% target most of our EU friends have set we would be spending somewhere in the region of €5 billion p/a. And that might be a price we might have to pay in the future!

    While I would welcome more military co-operation in the frame of the EU this is not going to happen as we cannot be relied upon within the framework. For us to deploy anything more than 12 troops we need authorization from the UN SC. This will not always be there when the EU wants to act, especially when the action is not aligned with one or more of the veto members.

  12. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  13. #2633
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I think the point made was not to be like Russia but to be ready to defend against this type of vessel. They happily sell their ships, fully equipped, to help destabilise other states where our ships may be working.
    To be fair, the Russians sell downgraded versions just as the Soviets did before them.

  14. #2634
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Ireland could afford a meaningful defence on its own, remember most effective defence is not about beating a potential aggressor but deterring them. As pointed out by many here and by even the current Taoiseach has said if we were to meet the 2% target most of our EU friends have set we would be spending somewhere in the region of €5 billion p/a. And that might be a price we might have to pay in the future!

    While I would welcome more military co-operation in the frame of the EU this is not going to happen as we cannot be relied upon within the framework. For us to deploy anything more than 12 troops we need authorization from the UN SC. This will not always be there when the EU wants to act, especially when the action is not aligned with one or more of the veto members.
    If we're going to move towards something more than our current BS stance, then the very first thing to go should be the Triple F'king Lock.

  15. Likes Flamingo, na grohmiti, CTU, sofa, Shaqra liked this post
  16. #2635
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    If we're going to move towards something more than our current BS stance, then the very first thing to go should be the Triple F'king Lock.
    I can see all the anti-war protesters that were marching outside the Russian embassy going for that!
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  17. Likes na grohmiti, sofa liked this post
  18. #2636
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,655
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    If we're going to move towards something more than our current BS stance, then the very first thing to go should be the Triple F'king Lock.
    How else is our government supposed to say encouraging things about worldwide crises without having to do anything useful to help?
    Not having the US, China and the Soviet.. er Russia to rubberstamp all our foreign interventions would only lead to us being able to make a difference.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  19. Likes CTU, Flamingo liked this post
  20. #2637
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    I can see all the anti-war protesters that were marching outside the Russian embassy going for that!
    The Triple Lock was an Irish expedient position to maintain an otherwise Neutral stance. However together we are stronger and our togetherness should be with Europe. If we stand totally neutral our geographic position as sentinel of the Atlantic will attract occupation. Hiding and hoping the boogeyman will go away is not an option.

  21. Likes Flamingo, Herald, EUFighter, Shaqra liked this post
  22. #2638
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The Triple Lock was an Irish expedient position to maintain an otherwise Neutral stance. However together we are stronger and our togetherness should be with Europe. If we stand totally neutral our geographic position as sentinel of the Atlantic will attract occupation. Hiding and hoping the boogeyman will go away is not an option.
    The Triple Lock was a stunt by Bertie to deal with the BS claims (from the Shinners and the Left) about us being conscripted into an "EU Army" instead of actually confronting the lie.

  23. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo liked this post
  24. #2639
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's something that should be challenged. An I right in thinking it's not part of the Constitution?
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  25. #2640
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    It's something that should be challenged. An I right in thinking it's not part of the Constitution?
    Don't think it is, but I could be wrong.

  26. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  27. #2641
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as I am aware the only thing in the constitution that comes close is Article 28,3'1

    War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.
    So there is nothing really constitutional in changing the Triple Lock to a Double Lock (Government & Dail) and then have the requirement of UN Mandaite has government policy only.
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  28. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  29. #2642
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,243
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    The Triple Lock was a stunt by Bertie to deal with the BS claims (from the Shinners and the Left) about us being conscripted into an "EU Army" instead of actually confronting the lie.
    The Triple Lock is a Government Policy but also in law (UN mandate required since around 1960 under a Defence (Amendment) Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    It's something that should be challenged. An I right in thinking it's not part of the Constitution?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Don't think it is, but I could be wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    As far as I am aware the only thing in the constitution that comes close is Article 28,3'1



    So there is nothing really constitutional in changing the Triple Lock to a Double Lock (Government & Dail) and then have the requirement of UN Mandaite has government policy only.
    It could be argued that Article 29 is where the UN mandate part of the Triple Lock comes from in the Defence Amendment Acts (the Constitution arguably making it a requirement).

  30. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  31. #2643
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The Triple Lock is a Government Policy but also in law (UN mandate required since around 1960 under a Defence (Amendment) Act







    It could be argued that Article 29 is where the UN mandate part of the Triple Lock comes from in the Defence Amendment Acts (the Constitution arguably making it a requirement).
    Looking at Art.29 I would disagree. I heartily dislike 29.9 forbidding taking part in EU defence.

  32. Likes CTU liked this post
  33. #2644
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,655
    Post Thanks / Like
    That was put in to appease the "no eu army" shower.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  34. #2645
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,243
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Looking at Art.29 I would disagree. I heartily dislike 29.9 forbidding taking part in EU defence.
    Article 29.4.2 refers to the League of Nations (that is where the UN comes in)

  35. #2646
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like
    We have talking about this EPV for so long, I am starting to feel like it needs a midlife upgrade already. Does anyone actually know when the tender is going to be issued.
    Last edited by ibenji; 18th December 2019 at 22:45.

  36. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  37. #2647
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,655
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes. Many people do.
    If you think this is bad the planning process for p31 started shortly after P20 L.E. Deirdre entered service. The original proposals looked nothing like the ship that went down the slip way 10 years later.
    Does anyone remember seeing the original proposed design for P31? It appeared on a recruitment pamphlet around 1980. Back then it was thought that adding a flat deck space aft on an enlarged P20 was all that was required.
    Many lessons are learnt during the design process, all while trying to secure government funding. This process is no different. The original RPF has expired, and lessons learnt by others, in addition to changing requirements here, has greatly changed the proposed layout as seen in presentations over a decade ago.
    But we are very close, the government remains supportive of the proposal and the industry is primed to offer a number of interesting solutions.
    Last edited by na grohmiti; 18th December 2019 at 14:17.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  38. Likes sofa liked this post
  39. #2648
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Article 29.4.2 refers to the League of Nations (that is where the UN comes in)
    Huh?

    "2° For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State is or becomes associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern."

    That only means that the state can delegate responsibility to supranational entities.

  40. Likes CTU liked this post
  41. #2649
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,983
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Huh?

    "2° For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State is or becomes associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern."

    That only means that the state can delegate responsibility to supranational entities.
    The way articles are worded often lessen outcomes. Words such as "May" , and " Extent " "Subject" "Conditions" can turn a ship or a military unit into a few observers.
    If the Government isn't concerned then nothing gets done.

  42. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  43. #2650
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The way articles are worded often lessen outcomes. Words such as "May" , and " Extent " "Subject" "Conditions" can turn a ship or a military unit into a few observers.
    If the Government isn't concerned then nothing gets done.
    Still doesn't fly. This literally only means that the state can delegate to supernational entities such as the UN or EU. Using it as an excuse for the triple lock would require that then being invoked elsewhere. Which it clearly has:

    "2.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force may be despatched for service outside the State as part of a particular International United Nations Force if, but only if, a resolution has been passed by Dáil Éireann approving of the despatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service outside the State as part of that International United Nations Force."

    What gets me in this context is the participation in the Nordic Battlegroup - how would that have worked then?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 00:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •