Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White Paper - When is it due to be published?

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

  • so ? There was one in the last one too. There was a whole series of fking reports and special studies and kick-to-touches. Personally I am on the use it or abolish it . Watching elected representatives bang on about a "link to the local community" which is utter BS from 50 years ago. The GAA is the best local mafia we have if you want that.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by trellheim View Post
      so ? There was one in the last one too.
      That's what I'm saying

      Comment


      • aking Orla and Ciara firstly they were acquired around the time of the Eskund gun running at a time when the threat from the state came from Gerry Adams and his mates, and politically the state needed a heavily armed and capable coastal patrol capability to prevent terrorist gun running as there was a real fear that the provos would seek to topple the state with the Libyan arms shipments and massively escalate their campaign in the North. Hence why the brits sold them to us for a song; that requirement is gone, and let’s be honest, both vessels have limitations.
        Nice theory , but not the actual reason we needed the Peacocks.

        We needed this type of shallow draft twin screw vessel for inshore fishery protection as the Sweepers were gone and there was nothing on the open market that was suitable.The P21s were single screw and not manouevarible inshore. The UKRN were winding down their Hong Kong commitment and sold off the remainder of the type to the Filipinos soon later. The Peacocks for Irish service were less than ideal in in some respects a huge step backwards, but the were cheap, they ticked the boxes in relation to the inshore capability and they brought with them a weapons system that we had baulked at in the past.


        Now looking at the Frigate theory, the one thing that jumps off the page is the number..One is never enough, here we go back to operating 'penny packet' forces again. You can't provide a specific service or commit to long term operations with a singular vessel , Two being a minimum three optimum...The vessels mention would suffice, but you have to buy off the shelf as we don't have the know how to build or even supervise such a build program.

        Now a 'White Paper ' being about policy as opposed to assets, we can't commit to policy without assets, policy can be ammended if we don't have the assets, but if we commit to buying Frigates, then we can stand behind policy.

        Without the assets, policy is just ink on paper.
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • Policy could be for example a blue/green vessel, 9 ship navy etc

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Policy could be for example a blue/green vessel, 9 ship navy etc
            The ST report seems to say 8 though, with reference to replacing the 2 CPV's and Eithne.

            Comment


            • Hopefully it is Minimum 8 and not Maximum 8.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • Anybody got a link or scan of the ST article?
                "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                Comment


                • Here you go Apod:

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pym View Post
                    I'm not surprised at that - it's the most economical choice, but I'd hope improved primary radar coverage would go hand in hand with an improved Air Corps/DF interface with the IAA.

                    I'll go out on a limb and say the "NATO radar system, a gross violation of Irish neutrality" will be the subject of protests by Daly, Wallace et al. Securing the site will be fun.
                    Ireland still needs an aircraft that is capable of intercepting foreign aircraft. Detection of them is good but then what? Phone the RAF!

                    Comment


                    • If there's any veracity whatsoever to the frigate story - aside from kite flying - it'll be purchased as an international asset of the EU, it wont be so much for flying the Irish flag, as flying the EU flag on enforcement missions. When it's in dry dock, a German/French/Swedish whatever one will take its place. Likewise it's parts/systems/blah will be purchased and maintained on a shared basis with whatever nations are operating the same type.

                      Although perhaps the EU would see it as desirable to have an Irish flagged frigate operating on its behalf, rather than a French or other one where there may be colonial/other baggage.

                      This all being great provided they help with the costs.

                      (erk.. just saw Paul G's post)
                      Last edited by pym; 7 July 2015, 19:01.

                      Comment


                      • I think you guys put too much hope & aspiration in the white paper, the yearly budget is a much bigger guiding document. Long term planning is not a done thing in Irish Politics. Politicians can't be trusted and all it takes is one self serving careerist of an officers to gut the DF over the course of a ministerial term in favour of said TDs pet project/constituency.
                        Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                          Thankfully they seem, quietly, to accept that we are not spending enough.
                          until other departments budgets are cut to pay for it

                          Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          Now a 'White Paper ' being about policy as opposed to assets, we can't commit to policy without assets, policy can be ammended if we don't have the assets, but if we commit to buying Frigates, then we can stand behind policy.

                          Without the assets, policy is just ink on paper.
                          But you can't justify buying the assets if policy prevents you using it

                          Originally posted by Herald View Post
                          The ST report seems to say 8 though, with reference to replacing the 2 CPV's and Eithne.
                          They were just examples of policies.

                          Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                          Personally I'd put it in the lazy journo thread, the source was probably IMO

                          Originally posted by pym View Post
                          If there's any veracity whatsoever to the frigate story - aside from kite flying - it'll be purchased as an international asset of the EU, it wont be so much for flying the Irish flag, as flying the EU flag on enforcement missions. When it's in dry dock, a German/French/Swedish whatever one will take its place. Likewise it's parts/systems/blah will be purchased and maintained on a shared basis with whatever nations are operating the same type.

                          Although perhaps the EU would see it as desirable to have an Irish flagged frigate operating on its behalf, rather than a French or other one where there may be colonial/other baggage.

                          This all being great provided they help with the costs.

                          (erk.. just saw Paul G's post)
                          See your own post regarding the reaction, just substitute NATO for EU

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            There was a RDF chapter in the WP
                            Just had a read of it and TBH they could cut and paste quite a bit of it into the new one

                            Originally posted by paul g View Post
                            Where has that been offically confirmed.

                            My understanding is that all the infantry cars are going to get RWS over the next five years , that the nine converted were the iniital batch for testing and that replacing the turret will allow further upgrades to the vehicles armour.
                            DF Facebook page said that they were converted to CRVs

                            Comment


                            • They are crvs and being sent to Cav units
                              Sir I cant find my peltors........Private they are on your face

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by spider pig View Post
                                They are crvs and being sent to Cav units
                                So they spend a fortune modifying nine cars and acquiring RWS at considerable expense and then they send them as training vehicles to home based squadrons, one of whom is based 30 mins drive away from the vehicle garrages purpose build for the mowags in the Curragh, and given that its based in the middle of the city has to drive to the curragh to train drivers

                                can't see the logic in that myself. Nor could I find any reference to the Df facebook page to the 9 modified cars being given to the CAV.
                                Last edited by paul g; 8 July 2015, 12:28.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X