Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Irish trawler 'given order to move on' by Royal Navy frigate

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    It would be interesting to have the Swedes send one of their Gotland class subs to play with the NS.
    How far could they sneak into Cork harbour?
    How easily could they place dummy mines at the entrance?
    How close could they get to one of our vessels before surfacing?
    Considering we only have 1 naval sonar between 9 ships (on Eithne)...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
      old time tale begins I remember on one passage through English Channel observing a RN Type 21 on our to the north horizon heading west, it's lynx zipping about nearby. Through binoculars I could also make out a Type 22 Broadsword type nearby heading south, It's lynx on deck, rotors turning. The skipper called me to the other side of the bridge and said "SUB"! After much swapping of binoculars, I eventually spotted a periscope, about 100m away, using our noisy engines and commercial wake to mask their acoustic location, while keeping a close eye on the 2 ships we presumed were looking for it. We considered hailing them on VHF to report sub activity, but hey, its their game.old time tale ends

      This would have been about 20 NM south of the Dorset Coast, in a very congested shipping lane, near a number of large British and French ports. It is presumed they carry out their games with due regard for the safety of other vessels.
      Just as well that ye saw the sub, he would be blind except for his periscope which I expect he was using to watch the T21 & T22.
      That close it is just as well you spotted him, a quick change in course and you might have got him
      HMS Ambush did not do so well, it got rammed by an oil tanker off Gibraltar during a Perisher exercise.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Considering we only have 1 naval sonar between 9 ships (on Eithne)...
        I know, that is the point of such an exercise, to demonstrate how easy it would be to block a key facility.
        Even if the Eithne is fitted with a naval sonar is it not out of service.

        Such a demonstration could be part of the defence review.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          Just as well that ye saw the sub, he would be blind except for his periscope which I expect he was using to watch the T21 & T22.
          That close it is just as well you spotted him, a quick change in course and you might have got him
          HMS Ambush did not do so well, it got rammed by an oil tanker off Gibraltar during a Perisher exercise.
          We mostly ran that route on autopilot, with radar alarms set while we tidied up after leaving chalk city, but on this occasion we had stopped at sea to deal with gearbox problems, so we had time to look around. To us it looked no wider than a broomhandle.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            Any visit to scandanavia and you soon realise either the Irish did a lot of breeding there, or the vikings did a lot of breeding here. The pale skin freckle face with the ginger hair is a very nordic trait, yet is considered picture postcard irish here.
            The Normans too had Viking roots ...

            Comment


            • #66
              that was probably an observation periscope, not the main targeting scope,which is bigger,can be used to take photos and can tilt the head and so on. On the TV show a few years ago, showing the Perisher training, sneaking into harbours was part of the training.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                The article was interesting especially with regard to how we are told to see ourselves, "we are a small poor country". This has been the mantra since the earliest days of the state back in the 1920's. Time has moved on and so has the state, we are a modern medium sized nation, a wealthy nation. The best indication of the change has been the population growth. When we were a poor nation the population was steady or declining but in the last 50yrs we have gone from 3m to almost 5m. That would not have happened if we were still a "poor" country. But that mindset persists with regard to defence, that we cannot afford to fund defence properly.

                Hopefully the review will look beyond just a comparison of how similar sized non-aligned countries structure and fund their defence. It must look at how defence is sold to the citizens, how it is integrated into their view of what is essential for the country. If was announced that the NS was to buy 2 submarines to help protect our state there would be disbelief and outcry. "why do we need U-boats? they are a weapon of aggression!" The population as a whole does not understand what other roles a submarine can play. If we are honest anyone with knowledge of the subject (including politicians) know how much we should be spending of defence, a lot lot more than we do today. Therefore the review must include how to educate the wider population otherwise the results will never be implemented.
                There is a "All ways the victim" narrative implanted in our brains.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                  The article was interesting especially with regard to how we are told to see ourselves, "we are a small poor country". This has been the mantra since the earliest days of the state back in the 1920's. Time has moved on and so has the state, we are a modern medium sized nation, a wealthy nation. The best indication of the change has been the population growth. When we were a poor nation the population was steady or declining but in the last 50yrs we have gone from 3m to almost 5m. That would not have happened if we were still a "poor" country. But that mindset persists with regard to defence, that we cannot afford to fund defence properly.

                  Hopefully the review will look beyond just a comparison of how similar sized non-aligned countries structure and fund their defence. It must look at how defence is sold to the citizens, how it is integrated into their view of what is essential for the country. If was announced that the NS was to buy 2 submarines to help protect our state there would be disbelief and outcry. "why do we need U-boats? they are a weapon of aggression!" The population as a whole does not understand what other roles a submarine can play. If we are honest anyone with knowledge of the subject (including politicians) know how much we should be spending of defence, a lot lot more than we do today. Therefore the review must include how to educate the wider population otherwise the results will never be implemented.
                  There is a "All ways the victim" narrative implanted in our brains.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Before going too far on the thread, it might be more useful to have the old "how big/small should the NS be" thread re-opened!

                    The recent discussion over the submarine traffic and the inability to even monitor it has raised the issue of how big and with what should the NS be equipped. (The manning issues is tackle in its own thread).

                    The primary justification of the current fleet and its size has been fishery protection with some ATCA thrown in. Then comes the more military justifications such as support for the Army etc. So even taking the premise that 50% of the fleet is justified by fishery protection that mean for us it is protecting less than 0.3% of our economy, just about the same as the contribution of the Corrib gas field. Even if the entire fishery activity within our EEZ was to restricted to Irish boats and landed in Ireland the contribution would still be less than 1% of our GDP.

                    If we look at the other 99% of the economy it is very clear just how much depends on what travels above and below out waters; energy, data, goods, food. We rely on the import of coal and oil with ships, the importation of electricity and gas via undersea connectors all of which need protection. A large section of the economy is reliant upon the data connections that run on the seabed. Almost everything we use from cars, phones to white goods comes via sea. And even if we claim to be still an agricultural nation we are value wise a net importer of food. So if fish can justify 4-6 vessels how much could the rest of the economy justify.

                    This thread has focused heavily on the topic of ASW and although it is not the only naval topic that would need to be reviewed in relation to the security of the nation the discussion has to start somewhere.

                    We know that as an island nation that the security of our supply lines has in the past been threaten by submarine activity. The technology and capability of submarines has increased over the years while our ability to detect, track and engage has disappeared. Submarines today do not need to fire a torpedo to do damage to our economy. They can deploy divers or ROVs to tap or cut underwater connectors while remaining undetected. So what would be our options:

                    (a) Modify the P60s with ASW capability
                    (b) Modify the C-295s with ASW capabilty
                    (c) Next new NS vessels to be ASW capable
                    (d) Buy dedicated ASW aircraft
                    (e) Buy hunter-killer SSKs

                    What should not be ignored is that all but the last option will also require friendly sub equipped nation(s) to go and train with.

                    Of the options the first two would be the easiest in the near term to implement. Modifying the C-295 would take a bit of efforts but the modification are already known as they have been done of other C-295 aircraft already. The installation of a MAD boon is possible aft of the tails while the sonobuoy dispenser is just inside the aft ramp. These modification have been done to aircraft in-service with Chile. And if needed hardpoints can be added under each wing.

                    The P60 vessels would be require a much more intrusive modification. It is unlikely that space has been left for the installation of a hull mounted sonar. But seeing that elsewhere the discussion has been about adding air search radar, CMS, and CIWS why not throw ASW into the refit!
                    For sensors a hull mounted sonar such as the Thales Kingklip or Kongsbey SS2030, would be a basic fit. More capability would be added with a VDS and there are small units available such as the Kongsberg S2400 or the containerised Atlas ACTAS system. The aft deck of the P60s would provide sufficient space for such an installation.
                    Next would be the effectors, ASW torpedo tubes could be mounted also on the aft deck as could any anti-torpedo counter measures. The only problem with ASW torpedoes is that they are not suitable for a "show of force". If you launch a torpedo it normally means it is going to attempt to kill the sub, this might not be the best solution in peace time.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      Before going too far on the thread, it might be more useful to have the old "how big/small should the NS be" thread re-opened!

                      The recent discussion over the submarine traffic and the inability to even monitor it has raised the issue of how big and with what should the NS be equipped. (The manning issues is tackle in its own thread).

                      The primary justification of the current fleet and its size has been fishery protection with some ATCA thrown in. Then comes the more military justifications such as support for the Army etc. So even taking the premise that 50% of the fleet is justified by fishery protection that mean for us it is protecting less than 0.3% of our economy, just about the same as the contribution of the Corrib gas field. Even if the entire fishery activity within our EEZ was to restricted to Irish boats and landed in Ireland the contribution would still be less than 1% of our GDP.

                      If we look at the other 99% of the economy it is very clear just how much depends on what travels above and below out waters; energy, data, goods, food. We rely on the import of coal and oil with ships, the importation of electricity and gas via undersea connectors all of which need protection. A large section of the economy is reliant upon the data connections that run on the seabed. Almost everything we use from cars, phones to white goods comes via sea. And even if we claim to be still an agricultural nation we are value wise a net importer of food. So if fish can justify 4-6 vessels how much could the rest of the economy justify.

                      This thread has focused heavily on the topic of ASW and although it is not the only naval topic that would need to be reviewed in relation to the security of the nation the discussion has to start somewhere.

                      We know that as an island nation that the security of our supply lines has in the past been threaten by submarine activity. The technology and capability of submarines has increased over the years while our ability to detect, track and engage has disappeared. Submarines today do not need to fire a torpedo to do damage to our economy. They can deploy divers or ROVs to tap or cut underwater connectors while remaining undetected. So what would be our options:

                      (a) Modify the P60s with ASW capability
                      (b) Modify the C-295s with ASW capabilty
                      (c) Next new NS vessels to be ASW capable
                      (d) Buy dedicated ASW aircraft
                      (e) Buy hunter-killer SSKs

                      What should not be ignored is that all but the last option will also require friendly sub equipped nation(s) to go and train with.

                      Of the options the first two would be the easiest in the near term to implement. Modifying the C-295 would take a bit of efforts but the modification are already known as they have been done of other C-295 aircraft already. The installation of a MAD boon is possible aft of the tails while the sonobuoy dispenser is just inside the aft ramp. These modification have been done to aircraft in-service with Chile. And if needed hardpoints can be added under each wing.

                      The P60 vessels would be require a much more intrusive modification. It is unlikely that space has been left for the installation of a hull mounted sonar. But seeing that elsewhere the discussion has been about adding air search radar, CMS, and CIWS why not throw ASW into the refit!
                      For sensors a hull mounted sonar such as the Thales Kingklip or Kongsbey SS2030, would be a basic fit. More capability would be added with a VDS and there are small units available such as the Kongsberg S2400 or the containerised Atlas ACTAS system. The aft deck of the P60s would provide sufficient space for such an installation.
                      Next would be the effectors, ASW torpedo tubes could be mounted also on the aft deck as could any anti-torpedo counter measures. The only problem with ASW torpedoes is that they are not suitable for a "show of force". If you launch a torpedo it normally means it is going to attempt to kill the sub, this might not be the best solution in peace time.
                      When you calculate the Value of the Fishery economy ,and it's policing, you must also consider the amount extracted by all nations permitted to fish and that it is begin done in accordance with relevant Laws. Our problems are manifold but are mainly centered around political, and industrial wish to control our waters being " plundered " by others. Defence is not seen as a priority and is getting more fragile in that there isn't an integrated weight put on capability maintenance, or acquisition of means to do so. Almost all front edge units are under equipped such as Navy, Aircorps, and Brigades. As you point out we need to retro fit some or all of our newer ships and overall strive to enter the modern surveillance scene.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        For 5 decades, maybe more, OPV has been the only game in town for the Naval service. While we had WW2 era corvettes in the 50s and 60s, realistically how much of their ASW kit was still in place at a time when the Cold War was at its height. The Consiton Class minesweepers also, were they ever used as minesweepers, or did their workload on entry to the EEC consist purely of Fisheries protection?
                        Since then we have introduced 5 classes of OPV, 4 exclusively for us, one off the shelf second hand.

                        Back in the mid 90s before the many defence reviews that went nowhere, experts were warning about our lack of capability, whether Anti Aircraft, anti ship or ASW. In EEZ terms, we still have just one patrol car for the whole of Ireland. NS authorities for the most part have focused on maintaining the status quo, as the only other option was to lose what capability we had, and who could blame them for that. Until there is a mature discussion about increasing the Defence budget dramatically then any other discussion in official circles is pointless. The Defence Forces, as a whole has been "cutting cloth to suit the measure" instead of getting a huge roll of cloth and seeing what can be made from it...
                        The worst culprits in this discussion are those from certain parties who jump up and down in the Dail demanding better conditions for members of the DF, while not once demanding a budget increase. I always say it is like the Vegan insisting you buy meat from the local butcher to support the local economy, as long as no animals have been harmed in the process.

                        We keep going back to the same comparisons, unfortunately but I have to say NZ is a good template for our preferred military picture. Both have Small populations, Both have Bigger neighbour who they are too often mistaken for. Both have a large exposed maritime area to protect, Both deploy frequently to overseas peacekeeping missions where they often need to be self sustaining. Both are the last landfall between their region of the world and the American continent. Both have a similar naval history, Locally based RN ships protecting waters until RNZN founding in 1941, shortly after our Marine service was formed. However they got cruisers, we got MTBs. We stayed mostly neutral, they got involved from the outset.

                        NZ have seen fit to maintain a combination of conventional warship and OPV fleet, with support vessels. Their Frigates were justified, politically for the same reasons we could justify them here, that is to prevent foreign forces from using their waters to carry out operations. The Support ships, after that, are a no-brainer.
                        So in that regard:
                        Sell P40 to highest bidder. Time up on them long ago. Leave the P50 as they are, we have about 10 years before replacement will need to be considered. Give the P60 the Air Search radar they were designed for. Automate the secondary and put GPMG mounts on the RIBs. Keep your Bridge wing GPMG mount, along with the 50 cal mount and the Main deck GPMG. Consider swapping one GPMG for a minigun to deter swarm attacks when deployed overseas.
                        Replace P31 as planned with a Multi Role vessel, incorporating the lessons learnt from the NZ experience. Consider options for Frigate Procurement, no less than 2, no more than 4. Either opt in to T31 or Fremm or consider purchase of newer 2nd hand frigate, such as Duke class, La Fayette or similar, keeping in mind that we would have at best only 15 years life left in a ship built in the Mid 90s. Knowing also that the unit cost for any new frigate is in the region of Half the current annual defence budget. Support fleet with AOR and Dive support tug. Maximise crew training on latter 2 lean manned ships.
                        Return to tradition of naming vessels after characters from Irish Mythology, not Authors. We don't want to be dealing with the fallout requiring L.E. John Boyne to be renamed.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          All good points, but you forgot the most important bit - pay and conditions that will attract and retain crews at all levels
                          '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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                            All good points, but you forgot the most important bit - pay and conditions that will attract and retain crews at all levels
                            That should be a given with a larger Defence Budget, if you maintain the 30:70 ratio for pay:capital expenditure
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                              All good points, but you forgot the most important bit - pay and conditions that will attract and retain crews at all levels
                              No one has forgotten but it is not just a NS issue it is one that has to be tackled for the entire DF.
                              Part will be pay and conditions but also working arrangements, accommodation, contracts etc.
                              There needs to be a total overhaul of the system, it requires more than just a few more Euros in pay.

                              But this is now a problem unique to us, so again comparison with other countries might help. It could be that we need to develop answers together with other similar countries.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                                We keep going back to the same comparisons, unfortunately but I have to say NZ is a good template for our preferred military picture. Both have Small populations, Both have Bigger neighbour who they are too often mistaken for. Both have a large exposed maritime area to protect, Both deploy frequently to overseas peacekeeping missions where they often need to be self sustaining. Both are the last landfall between their region of the world and the American continent. Both have a similar naval history, Locally based RN ships protecting waters until RNZN founding in 1941, shortly after our Marine service was formed. However they got cruisers, we got MTBs. We stayed mostly neutral, they got involved from the outset.

                                NZ have seen fit to maintain a combination of conventional warship and OPV fleet, with support vessels. Their Frigates were justified, politically for the same reasons we could justify them here, that is to prevent foreign forces from using their waters to carry out operations. The Support ships, after that, are a no-brainer.
                                I would not limit the comparison to just NZ. When doing comparisons it is best to have a mix, to have some which have a lot in common and others where there is not so much. The latter could just provide an insight that was missing from the others. IMHO a comparison would include New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Portugal and Chile.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X