Thanks Thanks:  401
Likes Likes:  804
Dislikes Dislikes:  13

View Poll Results: (Realistically) What best to replace the Peacock CPVs with?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like for like (a similarly capable CPV)

    22 32.35%
  • 1-2 x OPVs (2 defending on available funds)

    39 57.35%
  • Larger number of much less capable patrol craft)

    7 10.29%
Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 925 of 1037

Thread: CPV Replacement

  1. #901
    C/S
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    East
    Posts
    301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The UK thinking is that hydrographic survey and mine clearance go hand in hand. Interesting.

    I saw on this forum that the NSR had personnel who were marine qualified, could they not do it if they had similar ships..

  2. Likes DeV liked this post
  3. #902
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The Military need to distance themselves from party political interactions and implied offers of financial support to Defence. The Defence duty and obligations to the security and Welfare of the State is where it is at , and should be the sole driver to equipping, training, and deployment of Defence assets. The PDF must continually submit it's budget requirements annually and PERSIST in all following years to attain the means to Defend the State. Buying large ticket items as placating gifts is counterproductive and causes new roles to pop up like weeds, which in turn snuff out many old skills that are still part of modern day defence. We cannot continue to renew ourselves based on political whims. Everybody knows the inventory for Combat units, Air Squadrons, Radar Surveillance, AA Defence, Naval Warfare, Coast Defence, Secondary Airfields, Harbours of Refuge etc. It is from that list you organise equipping and training. Lack of the right force projection, and lack of hours doing the job leads to dilution of ability and uncertainty in meeting adversarial situations.
    And part of that is providing a “safe and secure environment” for Department of Business, DPER, Enterprise Ireland etc.... and them knowing it (because it is taken for granted)

    Military provide military advise, DoD provide defence policy advice, Government make their decisions, decide on missions, taskings etc

    The Irish problem is DoD, DPER/Finance, successive governments and our electorate. We don’t however live in a military dictatorship.

  4. #903
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    And part of that is providing a “safe and secure environment” for Department of Business, DPER, Enterprise Ireland etc.... and them knowing it (because it is taken for granted)

    Military provide military advise, DoD provide defence policy advice, Government make their decisions, decide on missions, taskings etc

    The Irish problem is DoD, DPER/Finance, successive governments and our electorate. We don’t however live in a military dictatorship.
    I agree with who does what. The problem is that the political leadership of the day has applied so many brakes to the PDF since the Gleeson Commission, that the manoeuvring units are threadbare and may be beyond recovery. Defence is not cheap but it does create employment and could support home industry for the production of everything that a PDF needs from uniforms, to furnishings, and many technical supports. In 1983 the radars being built for British Frigates at Henglo in Holland were fitted with computer units built in Galway. Overall the danger is, that those in power may think the PDF is fit for purpose, someone should tell them it is not. Right now there is a shortage of night and all weather training except in the Naval Service. What is our night flying surveillance hours etc., etc.

  5. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  6. #904
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I agree with who does what. The problem is that the political leadership of the day has applied so many brakes to the PDF since the Gleeson Commission
    Why?
    Because their is no demand from the masses to change it

  7. #905
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Why?
    Because their is no demand from the masses to change it
    You are barking up the wrong tree, there will never be demand from "the masses". Defence is an insurance policy and like all insurance policies in this country unless you are forced to pay it most would prefer not too. Even with legal obligations such as with car insurance many do not. It is the task of those involved in the defence community to highlight the needs year after year, not just throw up the hands and accept scraps. All governments since the founding of the State have seen a need for a defence force, even when money was much tighter than today. But now we are reaching a stage where those forces are becoming no longer viable for the primary military mission that they have been assigned (as per mission statement).

    There is to be a Commission on Defence and it is the obligation of everyone who knows about, and care about the defence of the country to shout as loud as they can. It is not the masses that get heard but those who shout so loud as to drown out the opposition. In the past weeks it has often been said that this Commission is a once in a generation chance, I disagree, it is the last chance for a functioning military defence force. Unless the decline is reversed the military aspect will disappear within a generation or less. So the time is now here to get out and shout, to set out the stall for a proper defence force no matter what it costs. If that is not done then we can never expect someone else to come and do it for us.

  8. Thanks CTU, na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, na grohmiti liked this post
  9. #906
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    You are barking up the wrong tree, there will never be demand from "the masses". Defence is an insurance policy and like all insurance policies in this country unless you are forced to pay it most would prefer not too. Even with legal obligations such as with car insurance many do not. It is the task of those involved in the defence community to highlight the needs year after year, not just throw up the hands and accept scraps. All governments since the founding of the State have seen a need for a defence force, even when money was much tighter than today. But now we are reaching a stage where those forces are becoming no longer viable for the primary military mission that they have been assigned (as per mission statement).

    There is to be a Commission on Defence and it is the obligation of everyone who knows about, and care about the defence of the country to shout as loud as they can. It is not the masses that get heard but those who shout so loud as to drown out the opposition. In the past weeks it has often been said that this Commission is a once in a generation chance, I disagree, it is the last chance for a functioning military defence force. Unless the decline is reversed the military aspect will disappear within a generation or less. So the time is now here to get out and shout, to set out the stall for a proper defence force no matter what it costs. If that is not done then we can never expect someone else to come and do it for us.
    Setting out the stall for a proper Defence Force is the critical factor and can only be done by those in charge of the Defence of the State. We can start off by being thankful that we are an island and the tanks won't come rolling in from unknown directions. We need a good National Surveillance system , by eye in coastal areas, by Radar for Air and Surface centrally monitored 24/7, MPA patrols by day and night, Naval coverage in the 200nm EEZ to cover all aspects of Surveillance. There should be at least one designated assault unit, maybe at Battn level with all supports, ready for intervention on order. There should be sufficient training to make all forces comfortable in the night environment in most weathers. A surface and air picture should be available daily 24/7. Critical factor is ISTAR and be aware.

  10. Likes na grohmiti, DeV liked this post
  11. #907
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Setting out the stall for a proper Defence Force is the critical factor and can only be done by those in charge of the Defence of the State. We can start off by being thankful that we are an island and the tanks won't come rolling in from unknown directions. We need a good National Surveillance system , by eye in coastal areas, by Radar for Air and Surface centrally monitored 24/7, MPA patrols by day and night, Naval coverage in the 200nm EEZ to cover all aspects of Surveillance. There should be at least one designated assault unit, maybe at Battn level with all supports, ready for intervention on order. There should be sufficient training to make all forces comfortable in the night environment in most weathers. A surface and air picture should be available daily 24/7. Critical factor is ISTAR and be aware.
    We got rid of coastal artillery but how many coastal radar does the NS have? Yes everyone is required to have AIS but it is the ones who don't we should worry about. And as for knowing what is transiting under the waves, the less said the better!

  12. Likes DeV liked this post
  13. #908
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    All coastal radar is locally managed now, by whoever operates the local port. Some ports don't even use Radar any more, trusting well placed AIS receivers.
    Meanwhile travel up any of Europe's ports or waterways and regularly meet radar antennae as unobtrusive as navigation Buoys.
    Like everything else, we choose not to be able to afford it.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. Likes EUFighter, DeV, Graylion liked this post
  15. #909
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    All coastal radar is locally managed now, by whoever operates the local port. Some ports don't even use Radar any more, trusting well placed AIS receivers.
    Meanwhile travel up any of Europe's ports or waterways and regularly meet radar antennae as unobtrusive as navigation Buoys.
    Like everything else, we choose not to be able to afford it.
    At a National non-military level we have signed and issued SI covering VTS. As pointed out we rely heavily on the mandatory carriage of AIS transponders on most things above 24metres in length. A typical VTS where instructions and guidance is issued to vessels in close geographical waters , consists of Radar, CCTV in harbours, VHF Radar, and of course AIS. The Agency which is suppose to police compliance with the system is the ICG. Countries like France have overlapping Radar coverage all along their Channel and Atlantic Coasts with manned monitoring stations. If you deviate incorrectly in Traffic Zones , you will be overflown by a French Plane and instructed to correct your position. Likewise Dover and the English Coast have radar coverage and close monitoring. We tend to see nothing outside the gate of Lord Fitzgerald's house.

  16. Likes na grohmiti, DeV, Tempest liked this post
  17. #910
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    You are barking up the wrong tree, there will never be demand from "the masses". Defence is an insurance policy and like all insurance policies in this country unless you are forced to pay it most would prefer not too. Even with legal obligations such as with car insurance many do not. It is the task of those involved in the defence community to highlight the needs year after year, not just throw up the hands and accept scraps. All governments since the founding of the State have seen a need for a defence force, even when money was much tighter than today. But now we are reaching a stage where those forces are becoming no longer viable for the primary military mission that they have been assigned (as per mission statement).

    There is to be a Commission on Defence and it is the obligation of everyone who knows about, and care about the defence of the country to shout as loud as they can. It is not the masses that get heard but those who shout so loud as to drown out the opposition. In the past weeks it has often been said that this Commission is a once in a generation chance, I disagree, it is the last chance for a functioning military defence force. Unless the decline is reversed the military aspect will disappear within a generation or less. So the time is now here to get out and shout, to set out the stall for a proper defence force no matter what it costs. If that is not done then we can never expect someone else to come and do it for us.
    Unless there is demand from the masses (ie the electorate, the politicans’ bosses) the TOR of the CoD will be far from transformative. They will decide what the CoD Discusses. Be under no illusions they only reason there is to be a CoD is due to lobbying.

    Like any report unless there is demands from the masses to implement it, the report will sit on a shelf (especially the case if it requires significant financial resources). The only other place that pressure can come from is our EU peers!

    In this country if you don’t lobby you don’t get even if there is a clear need.

    It may not be right but that is the way it is.



    Take it from someone who has had to put pressure on politicians provide school places for a local secondary school, there is a clear need for it, vital service etc.
    Last edited by DeV; 19th September 2020 at 17:19.

  18. #911
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Unless there is demand from the masses (ie the electorate, the politicans’ bosses) the TOR of the CoD will be far from transformative. They will decide what the CoD Discusses. Be under no illusions they only reason there is to be a CoD is due to lobbying.

    Like any report unless there is demands from the masses to implement it, the report will sit on a shelf (especially the case if it requires significant financial resources). The only other place that pressure can come from is our EU peers!

    In this country if you don’t lobby you don’t get even if there is a clear need.

    It may not be right but that is the way it is.



    Take it from someone who has had to put pressure on politicians provide school places for a local secondary school, there is a clear need for it, vital service etc.
    During the deliberations of the Pre- Committee on Defence, the submissions by those tasked with carrying out the Defence Mission, must be crystal clear on the needs of all Defence units in order to implement the Mission effectively. The Status Quo plus pay rises will not of itself build an effective Defence Force. We must start acquiring the range of modern weapons systems, Naval, Army, and Air Corps, to fulfill the Mission. We must see, hear, and deal with all threats which implies an island surveillance system , in all dimensions, for a start. Coupled with target acquisition and weapon delivery systems by land ,Sea, and Air.

  19. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
  20. #912
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    During the deliberations of the Pre- Committee on Defence, the submissions by those tasked with carrying out the Defence Mission, must be crystal clear on the needs of all Defence units in order to implement the Mission effectively. The Status Quo plus pay rises will not of itself build an effective Defence Force. We must start acquiring the range of modern weapons systems, Naval, Army, and Air Corps, to fulfill the Mission. We must see, hear, and deal with all threats which implies an island surveillance system , in all dimensions, for a start. Coupled with target acquisition and weapon delivery systems by land ,Sea, and Air.
    Well all know what the DF needs to efficiently succeed at its (current) missions

    Depends on the ToR of the Commission that mission and the strategic intend my change

  21. #913
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Well all know what the DF needs to efficiently succeed at its (current) missions

    Depends on the ToR of the Commission that mission and the strategic intend my change
    The Mission must always have the right tools and skills. When you go tilling ground you bring Fork, Spade, grubber, or tractor and plough for big jobs. Every job has a set of tools, our tool rack has many empty slots. All pointing to potential failure to achieve the Mission.

  22. Likes na grohmiti, EUFighter liked this post
  23. #914
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Well all know what the DF needs to efficiently succeed at its (current) missions

    Depends on the ToR of the Commission that mission and the strategic intend my change
    Key will not be so much the ToRs but rather the Chairperson and make-up of the commission, every set of ToRs can be interpreted differently bu different people. And how do we remember commissions, by the name of the Chairperson! It is that person who will in the end have to sell the results to the government and the wider public. So depending on who is selected we will early-on be able to predict the outcome.

  24. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  25. #915
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Key will not be so much the ToRs but rather the Chairperson and make-up of the commission, every set of ToRs can be interpreted differently bu different people. And how do we remember commissions, by the name of the Chairperson! It is that person who will in the end have to sell the results to the government and the wider public. So depending on who is selected we will early-on be able to predict the outcome.
    Watch the Officer Clubs talks they are vital

    The Programme for Government says a lot but it is the ToR that says what the Commission can actually look into:

    Defence
    Irish people take great pride in our Permanent Defence Forces and the men and women who serve this country with pride and distinction. Since first deploying, the Defence Forces have the longest unbroken record of overseas service with the United Nations of any country, during this time the nature of conflict has presented new challenges. We will continue this proud record and ensure that the Defence Forces are suitably resourced to partake in such service recognising the new challenges facing the global community.
    Peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts are at the core of the international reputation of the Defence Forces. With climate change becoming an increasing security threat across the world and a significant
    129

    factor in the incidences of war, famine, forced migration and disaster management, we recognise the vital role the Defence Forces have in addressing these challenges.
    Commission on the Defence Forces
    In order to meet the medium and longer term defence requirements of the State an independent Commission will be established. This Commission will undertake a comprehensive review which will include the following matters:
    • Arrangements for the effective defence of the country at land and sea.
    • Structures for governance, joint command and control structures.
    • The brigade structure.
    • Pay and allowances and composition of the Defence Forces.
    • Recruitment. retention and career progression.
    • The contribution of the Reserve Defence Forces, including its legislation and Defence Forces
    regulations governing it and whether specialists from the RDF should be able to serve overseas.
    The Commission will contain a wide variety of expertise such as management, human resources, academia, law, public service, as well as members with external military expertise from countries similar in size to Ireland and also from states that like Ireland are non-aligned militarily.
    We will consult widely on the terms of reference for the Commission which will be established by end of 2020 with a mandate to report within twelve months.
    The outcome of this review will remain grounded in a policy of active military neutrality and participative multilateralism through the United Nations and European Union.
    Upon completion of the Commissions work, a permanent pay review body will be established, reflecting the unique nature of military service in the context of the public service. All recommendations by the Commission or the successor body and their implementation must be consistent with national public sector wage policy.
    Overseas operations and international co-operation
    The Government will ensure that all overseas operations will be carried out in line with our position of military neutrality and will be subject to a triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil Eireann approval.
    Ireland’s participation in PESCO projects will be maintained on an ‘opt-in’ basis, with contributions being entirely voluntary. Any projects undertaken within PESCO will be approved by Cabinet and Dáil Éireann.
    The Government will not partake in projects which are not compatible with our policy of active military neutrality and non-membership of military alliances.
    Within the context of the European Peace Facility Ireland will not be part of decision making or funding for lethal force weapons for non-peacekeeping purposes.
    Additional actions
    We will:
    • Support the establishment of centres for retired members of the Defence Forces.
    130

    • Develop a new Institute for Peace Support and Leadership Training in the Curragh.
    • Ensure that all enlisted members of the Defence Forces have the same access to healthcare
    as officers do currently.
    • Amend the Organisation of Working Time Act bringing the Defence Forces within the scope of
    its provisions.

  26. #916
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Watch the Officer Clubs talks they are vital

    The Programme for Government says a lot but it is the ToR that says what the Commission can actually look into:
    The terms of Reference using terms such as non-aligned militarily, and participative multilateralism needs further clarity as some of those in that club are current engaged in vicious wars. In Africa there are 53 members of NAM. In Asia there are 39 members including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq , Syria and Yemen. In Latin America and Caribbean there are 26 members including Colombia and Venezuela. there are only 2 members in Europe including Belarus. There are 17 countries with observer status including CHINA.
    I really conclude we are not saying what we mean or we don't know what we are saying. If there is an idea to deconstruct military units then when it is over we may discover vital parts missing.

  27. #917
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Latvian’s are removing much of the equipment from their MCMVs and replacing it with modular

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/defpost....sures-vessels/

  28. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  29. #918
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Latvian’s are removing much of the equipment from their MCMVs and replacing it with modular

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/defpost....sures-vessels/
    There has been for a long time , a shift in measures to counteract influence mines of all types. The Minehunter vessel became supreme with use of stand off methods such as Clearance divers and then unmanned units with remote planting of counter charges. This ECA group is packaging a modern version of what is being done already. It would be of interest to those adapting a Countermeasures programme or setting up a new one. The unanswered question is, are Field mines redundant for evermore? Will Defence in depth require nations to sow moored mines in defence of harbours, bays, and beaches. Are Minesweepers totally redundant?
    I am very interested in the Australians fitting inertial navigation on their new OPV's to make them independent of GNSS if such satellites were impaired. We should consider such systems as the day's of Differential GPS are numbered.

  30. #919
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    There has been for a long time , a shift in measures to counteract influence mines of all types. The Minehunter vessel became supreme with use of stand off methods such as Clearance divers and then unmanned units with remote planting of counter charges. This ECA group is packaging a modern version of what is being done already. It would be of interest to those adapting a Countermeasures programme or setting up a new one. The unanswered question is, are Field mines redundant for evermore? Will Defence in depth require nations to sow moored mines in defence of harbours, bays, and beaches. Are Minesweepers totally redundant?
    I am very interested in the Australians fitting inertial navigation on their new OPV's to make them independent of GNSS if such satellites were impaired. We should consider such systems as the day's of Differential GPS are numbered.
    Basically all nations are replacing there MCMVs over time so the equipment is containerised and deployable from a vessel of opportunity (whatever is around that the kit will fit on).

  31. #920
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know where they'll fit any extra equipment on the tripartites. They are small vessels, with very little open deck space.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  32. #921
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    645
    Post Thanks / Like

  33. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #922
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like

  35. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes spider liked this post
  36. #923
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,167
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is a project to develop or explore by trial an autonomous system to hunt and deal with specific mines or underwater ordnance. In a major conflict with many instances to be dealt with, and under time pressure, i believe that conventional systems will still be very relevant and as I said before the moored mine in 100's are not yet gone away, as they are a cheap form of effective denial and territorial protection.

  37. Likes spider liked this post
  38. #924
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,911
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    This is a project to develop or explore by trial an autonomous system to hunt and deal with specific mines or underwater ordnance. In a major conflict with many instances to be dealt with, and under time pressure, i believe that conventional systems will still be very relevant and as I said before the moored mine in 100's are not yet gone away, as they are a cheap form of effective denial and territorial protection.
    Found this on Twitter; very relevant to the mine warfare discussion -

    https://twitter.com/MASTT12
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  39. Likes DeV liked this post
  40. #925
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Heard on the radio yesterday that the Green Party manifesto called for:
    Designate 50% of Irish territorial waters as Marine protected areas

    Their submission on the National Marine Planning Framework says 30% by 2030, it’s currently 2.3%


    So not to forget what the CPV replacements will spend a lot of time doing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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