Originally posted by DeV
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
manning levels, the future.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by hptmurphy View PostIf it had been public knowledge before the crash, it could have been a game changer.
No AC asset has ever been a declared SAR asset so everyone knows that when IRCG request an AC asset they aren’t guaranteed it. Why are they not declared assets? Because DoD and Government don’t provide the tasking, resources or budget (it all has to be done from existing resources).
We know from the AAIU report, that the following MRCC’s initial request at 2203 hrs the AC duty Officer responded within 3 mins to say there was no availability until 0800 hrs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostWhat must STOP is any attempt to continue micromanaging Military/Naval assets. The decision on deployments, how many and where is a matter for the Commanding Officers . Need, appropriateness, urgency, are reasons to send a ship on HADR , especially when a couple of ships plus Marpats , coupled with surface and air AIS will keep the coast covered in exigent scenarios. The only task of Government is to approve or NOT.
Government has to give the broad mission and tasking (based on advice by SG DoD and COS). It then becomes Government Policy.
It is the DF’s and DoD’s job to implement that policy.
The execution of the mission is solely the DF’s responsibility.
DoD (and other Departments) is (should be) to provide the policies and resources to support the DF in the execution of the mission.
Having said that we live in the world of the strategic corporal and the tactical politician.
I haven’t come across the phrase “tactical civil servant” yet but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.....
Patent pending
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostWe were able to send Eithne to the US many a time back when we only had a 7 ship fleet. The ships crew was greatly boosted with those in the NS who would not normally be seagoing. Yet we still managed to patrol the EEZ with smaller ships. Similarly we were able to do regular UNIFIL resupply missions, normally of much longer duration than normal patrols. The work at home continued, and ships wen into regular refit as normal.
How come suddenly we are unable to do anything except the local patrol duties, with 5 out of 9 Operational ships?
Are the DoD punishing the NS for exposing their incompetence?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostYes and no.
Government has to give the broad mission and tasking (based on advice by SG DoD and COS). It then becomes Government Policy.
It is the DF’s and DoD’s job to implement that policy.
The execution of the mission is solely the DF’s responsibility.
DoD (and other Departments) is (should be) to provide the policies and resources to support the DF in the execution of the mission.
Having said that we live in the world of the strategic corporal and the tactical politician.
I haven’t come across the phrase “tactical civil servant” yet but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.....
Patent pending
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostIf you say yes and no, then Defence and Mission has to be continually re-evaluated and we approach the old scenario that the next CS rank to a General or Admiral is Clerical Officer. The decision tactically to say a ship or contingent is available is best decided by the Defence Forces who know their strengths and weaknesses. If proper interaction is going on with meaningful Defence briefings then we should never have reached the Wonky Donkey mode of operations. The truth and facts need to be continually stated that the Naval Service needs much more manpower and infrastructure to run a Nine ship Navy in any event. They could start by building one of those 50 room communal units in the West wall area to house single personnel who wish to live in.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostIRT mission - it should be continually assessed to varying degrees by all the above (but not necessarily in all areas) - everything from does it meet current Government policy, has threat assessment changed, are more/less troops required, is additional equipment required, do we need to change legislation, does defence policy need to altered
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by ancientmariner View PostIn the real world, the General Staff from its sources within and without would advise the Minister and Cabinet of our Defence needs based on National ,International, UN , and EU requirements and obligations if any. The Naval Service is a special case in that it needs to meet operational requirements at sea 24/7, even in peacetime. This means it needs to be properly manned , equipped, fed, and fuelled . The only Naval base/ maintenance facility is in Cork Harbour , and right next door is the Country's only Maritime College, outside of Fishery Schools in Donegal. The Base existence is now under threat from Port Development BUT does NOT appear to be Defended by a Stated Government Policy. If you remember the Department of Defence inherited a large acreage of land and Black Prince Pier on the Western side of Ringaskiddy. In my time our recreation grounds were on the lands Ringaskiddy/ Monkstown area. It was conceded to the Council leaving us to generate a poor playing field on the Steel dump at the Eastern side of the Dockyard. The Navy has always operated under siege with minimal support and occasional fortuitous support from membership of the EU. Defence policy is one of control and minimum spending and manpower thresholds. We may need to look for a new home and put in place a plan for Naval training, maintenance, and fuelling. The traditional away Naval Berths and moorings have disappeared . The threat assessment to be considered is Home Grown.!!
But in fairness to them, DoD objected to the incinerator
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostI too remember when the site that now holds NMCI and the associated centres, had signs on the fence saying "Lands property of Dept of Defence". I wonder what we, the taxpayer got in exchange for that land?
Comment
-
I have no idea what point you are trying to make there. NMCI and CIT are one and the same. They occupy the same space in ringaskiddy that was once dod property. As do the UCC operated Beaufort centre next door.
The structure is a ppp, not the college.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostI have no idea what point you are trying to make there. NMCI and CIT are one and the same. They occupy the same space in ringaskiddy that was once dod property. As do the UCC operated Beaufort centre next door.
The structure is a ppp, not the college.
That's not what the NMCI thinks
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bravo20 View Post
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment