Thanks Thanks:  907
Likes Likes:  1,851
Dislikes Dislikes:  49
Page 107 of 114 FirstFirst ... 75797105106107108109 ... LastLast
Results 2,651 to 2,675 of 2841
  1. #2651
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    [...] anything less than a 76mm main, and if deck penetration was an issue, then modern 57mm are bolt on, with similar bang for buck.
    76mm Sovraponte is also bolt on.

  2. #2652
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    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?
    Well we are currently part of the German battle group

    Any Irish participation in a Battlegroup deployment must pass the Triple Lock

  3. #2653
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Well we are currently part of the German battle group

    Any Irish participation in a Battlegroup deployment must pass the Triple Lock
    I know for a fact that there is an EU battlegroup which may be German Led at this stage, and that an Irish contingent will join them. How did Triple lock work for technical deployments to Afghanistan or the wanderings of the ARW. The MRV will have to be deployable in undertakings in consort and will require all the bits and pieces to suit interservice compatibility.

  4. #2654
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I know for a fact that there is an EU battlegroup which may be German Led at this stage, and that an Irish contingent will join them. How did Triple lock work for technical deployments to Afghanistan or the wanderings of the ARW. The MRV will have to be deployable in undertakings in consort and will require all the bits and pieces to suit interservice compatibility.
    Afghanistan was/is below the limit needed for the Triple Lock and the ARW have more latitude.

  5. #2655
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Afghanistan was/is below the limit needed for the Triple Lock and the ARW have more latitude.
    And ISAF has a UN mandate

  6. #2656
    Commandant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    So we can only deploy as part of an EU Battlegroup if the Russians and Chinese say we can. Why would any Battlegroup want us in it as we have to ask the UN and not the EU if we can go and play. The Triple lock can be kept but amended to UN Security Council and or EU Parliament Resolution.

  7. Likes Shaqra liked this post
  8. #2657
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    So we can only deploy as part of an EU Battlegroup if the Russians and Chinese say we can. Why would any Battlegroup want us in it as we have to ask the UN and not the EU if we can go and play. The Triple lock can be kept but amended to UN Security Council and or EU Parliament Resolution.
    Ask the Nordics in 2008, 2011 and 2015
    Ask the U.K. in 2016
    Ask the Germans in 2012 & 2016

  9. #2658
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like

  10. #2659
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,698
    Post Thanks / Like
    A five year old article on a missed opportunity.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  11. Likes CTU, EUFighter liked this post
  12. #2660
    Commandant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Ask the Nordics in 2008, 2011 and 2015
    Ask the U.K. in 2016
    Ask the Germans in 2012 & 2016
    It is one thing to be part of a training, but if the call comes to deploy a EUBG of which we are part and there is no UN SC resolution then we will get left behind. If next year to support the peace process in Ukraine the EU decides to deploy the EUBG as a buffer force with the co-operation of the government of the Ukraine but Russia objects in the UNSC then we will not be deployed.

  13. Likes CTU liked this post
  14. #2661
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It is one thing to be part of a training, but if the call comes to deploy a EUBG of which we are part and there is no UN SC resolution then we will get left behind. If next year to support the peace process in Ukraine the EU decides to deploy the EUBG as a buffer force with the co-operation of the government of the Ukraine but Russia objects in the UNSC then we will not be deployed.
    EU Battlegroups have been around for 12 years (not just ones with Irish involvement) Lots of violence around the world. Deployments zero. Serious proposals for deployment zero. Discussion of possible deployment 1

  15. #2662
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    EU Battlegroups have been around for 12 years (not just ones with Irish involvement) Lots of violence around the world. Deployments zero. Serious proposals for deployment zero. Discussion of possible deployment 1
    Another conclusion to draw from that is that if the EU battle group gets deployed, then the excrement will really be hitting the fan, and that’s not the kind of time to be starting to have the debate about should Ireland get its hands dirty or not. That decision needs to have been made beforehand.
    '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

  16. Likes sofa, Graylion, CTU liked this post
  17. #2663
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Another conclusion to draw from that is that if the EU battle group gets deployed, then the excrement will really be hitting the fan, and that’s not the kind of time to be starting to have the debate about should Ireland get its hands dirty or not. That decision needs to have been made beforehand.
    You realise that in order for a EU Battlegroup to be deployed there needs to be an unanimous decision of the European Union (all EU Heads of State have to agree to it (not sure if Denmark is included)).

    Each country in the Battlegroup(s) that is on standby have the right to refuse to deploy Their troops on a particular operation

  18. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  19. #2664
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    You realise that in order for a EU Battlegroup to be deployed there needs to be an unanimous decision of the European Union (all EU Heads of State have to agree to it (not sure if Denmark is included)).

    Each country in the Battlegroup(s) that is on standby have the right to refuse to deploy Their troops on a particular operation
    No, I wasn’t aware of the mechanism. I see what you mean, it’s not exactly a QRF! But having to get UN Security Council approval on top of that level of oversight and approval from the EU (which, face it, is allowed by the Dail to have a huge say in every other aspect of Irish law and life) seems to be at best an unnecessary delay, and at worse, a rejection of the ability of the EU to provide proper oversight of it’s actions.

    Let’s face it, the EU is made up of like minded economically linked democracies all of whom voluntarily joined. Why are they seen as somehow incapable of providing objective oversight when the de-facto dictatorships of Russia and China (in their guise as permanent members of the Security Council) are somehow seen by the Irish government as honest brokers with a veto?

    It is an issue that does need to be addressed.
    '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

  20. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, Shaqra liked this post
    Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  21. #2665
    Commandant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    You realise that in order for a EU Battlegroup to be deployed there needs to be an unanimous decision of the European Union (all EU Heads of State have to agree to it (not sure if Denmark is included)).

    Each country in the Battlegroup(s) that is on standby have the right to refuse to deploy Their troops on a particular operation
    Yes I am aware and it needs the full council approval, that includes Denmark. By the way it is not all the Heads of State, our President does not sit on the council, nor does the Queen. Apart from that the point is that within Europe all others can decide only we need to get Russia, China et al to agree.

  22. #2666
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does anybody know why we switched battle groups?

  23. #2667
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,263
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Yes I am aware and it needs the full council approval, that includes Denmark. By the way it is not all the Heads of State, our President does not sit on the council, nor does the Queen. Apart from that the point is that within Europe all others can decide only we need to get Russia, China et al to agree.
    That’s the EU wording

    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Does anybody know why we switched battle groups?
    Because a specific Battlegroup is formed for the 6 months it is on Standby

  24. #2668
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Yes I am aware and it needs the full council approval, that includes Denmark. By the way it is not all the Heads of State, our President does not sit on the council, nor does the Queen. Apart from that the point is that within Europe all others can decide only we need to get Russia, China et al to agree.
    In the UN Article 51 has been used unashamedly to chastise warring groups within UN nations, mainly to keep somebody in power, that cannot be dislodged politically. The veto is used by Security Council members to prevent negative action to their side . Since we were chair ( RYAN ) of UN Security Council at the outbreak of the preemptive action in Afghanistan surely, with that first hand experience, having them overseeing any action we wish to take in consort with the EU, is neither wise or needed but is a dilution of our sovereignty. Inversely, behind the posturing,our mandarins are aware of our military fragility which they oversee and are controlling and maybe they don't want blood on their hands.

  25. #2669
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    That’s the EU wording
    Nope.

    ""The members of the European Council are the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission."

  26. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
  27. #2670
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    In the UN Article 51 has been used unashamedly to chastise warring groups within UN nations, mainly to keep somebody in power, that cannot be dislodged politically. The veto is used by Security Council members to prevent negative action to their side . Since we were chair ( RYAN ) of UN Security Council at the outbreak of the preemptive action in Afghanistan surely, with that first hand experience, having them overseeing any action we wish to take in consort with the EU, is neither wise or needed but is a dilution of our sovereignty. Inversely, behind the posturing,our mandarins are aware of our military fragility which they oversee and are controlling and maybe they don't want blood on their hands.
    Back to the ship of the moment. The RCN have embarked on a programme for 8 Arctic OPV at 105m X 19m on 6,600 Tonnes to include icebreaker ability, Flight deck, live aboard helo, vehicle deck, 20 tonne crane, container handling, 12 metre landing craft, 2 fast boats, folding stabilisers etc. All designed to work in the Canadian Arctic, with a crew of 58ish.

  28. #2671
    Commandant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Back to the ship of the moment. The RCN have embarked on a programme for 8 Arctic OPV at 105m X 19m on 6,600 Tonnes to include icebreaker ability, Flight deck, live aboard helo, vehicle deck, 20 tonne crane, container handling, 12 metre landing craft, 2 fast boats, folding stabilisers etc. All designed to work in the Canadian Arctic, with a crew of 58ish.
    These vessels are extremely expensive at around €280m each, the Norwegian Svalbard class on which they are based would cost around €80m today. Plus the Canadian vessels only have a 25mm cannon while the Norwegians go with a 57mm!!

  29. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  30. #2672
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    These vessels are extremely expensive at around €280m each, the Norwegian Svalbard class on which they are based would cost around €80m today. Plus the Canadian vessels only have a 25mm cannon while the Norwegians go with a 57mm!!
    .

    The armament is presumptive on their humanitarian role in the Canadian Arctic Islands . Could change, with role, if advanced electronics are installed. The costs include future support and are in Canadian Dollars . The Canadian CG version is to be unarmed . It is an expensive package . All ships from day one need to be adaptable to defend or intervene against modern threats from all quarters.

  31. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  32. #2673
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    .

    The armament is presumptive on their humanitarian role in the Canadian Arctic Islands . Could change, with role, if advanced electronics are installed. The costs include future support and are in Canadian Dollars . The Canadian CG version is to be unarmed . It is an expensive package . All ships from day one need to be adaptable to defend or intervene against modern threats from all quarters.
    The AOPS vessels (Vard 7-100 ICE design) use the Lockheed Martin 330CMS Combat Management System which are now in the upgraded Halifax and Anzac frigates and will go in the Canadian Type 26.

    The reported Svalbard acquisition costs (from which the Vard 7-100 ICE evolved from) also never included radars, sensors or the CMS, nor either their integration and are now nearing 2 decades out of date.

  33. Thanks na grohmiti, sofa thanked for this post
  34. #2674
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    So we're into another year and we're looking at a incoming GE with the ramifications and delays that will bring, so any bets as to when we might see any movement on the EPV at this stage?

  35. Likes ibenji liked this post
  36. #2675
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    So we're into another year and we're looking at a incoming GE with the ramifications and delays that will bring, so any bets as to when we might see any movement on the EPV at this stage?
    The annual Naval revue which was a powerpoint type conference on what was done, and a glimpse of future developments , was binned this year. There was an address by FOCNS instead to the "troops" in the drill shed. It seems a singularity of matters is emerging.
    The MRV will probably emerge at some stage and hopefully match aspirations. Thinking about the LCVP requirement/operation , I think there should be two that are davit operated ( two point mounted) and similar to the RN LCVP Mk.5. The acquisition should be up to 6 to allow for training and carrying an extra for special missions. The ship should additionally have a fixed crane to match intended lifts to the Mk.5 and also have ramp discharge/loading bays for in port mobile units/cargoes.

  37. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

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
  •