Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Keep hitting them with the approved White Paper.
    Is that heavy enough? Maybe add some lead?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
      Is that heavy enough? Maybe add some lead?
      Take your point , however the White paper is prescriptive of intended development and we must keep pushing towards mentioned goals. i'm glad to see the purchase of two Airbus MPA type aircraft, even though they will be capable of the usual troop and VIP delivery. The Russians are up-arming OPV's with hypersonic missiles-there is every reason to believe ours are badly underarmed.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        Take your point , however the White paper is prescriptive of intended development and we must keep pushing towards mentioned goals. i'm glad to see the purchase of two Airbus MPA type aircraft, even though they will be capable of the usual troop and VIP delivery. The Russians are up-arming OPV's with hypersonic missiles-there is every reason to believe ours are badly underarmed.
        Well, they are constabulary vessels. IMO there is no way Ireland can or will want to afford any kind of meaningful defence on its own. I would like us to act inside the EU frame work and focus on force multipliers. ISTAR, logistics (ships like the ELLIDA) etc. A brace of electronics birds like the RAF Ravens would be very useful and welcome everywhere for instance.
        Last edited by Graylion; 16 December 2019, 05:00.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          Take your point , however the White paper is prescriptive of intended development and we must keep pushing towards mentioned goals. i'm glad to see the purchase of two Airbus MPA type aircraft, even though they will be capable of the usual troop and VIP delivery. The Russians are up-arming OPV's with hypersonic missiles-there is every reason to believe ours are badly underarmed.
          The Russians have also had their only carrier have it's floating drydock sink under it and now has something reported to be up to a 600 square meter fire burning for most of a day... Maybe we don't follow the Russians?
          If we want warships, then pay for them, don't act like the Russians who don't care about their navy or crews and stick random weapon systems onto ships just so they can make a benefit out of the weakness they have.

          Comment


          • I think the point made was not to be like Russia but to be ready to defend against this type of vessel. They happily sell their ships, fully equipped, to help destabilise other states where our ships may be working.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
              I think the point made was not to be like Russia but to be ready to defend against this type of vessel. They happily sell their ships, fully equipped, to help destabilise other states where our ships may be working.
              Exactly. If we spend E 400m on 6 OPV's and 2 MPA's what will we spend to keep them safe and useful. If fisheries is the only use considered by the mandarins then we must continue to press hard for Defensive hardware and technology.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                Well, they are constabulary vessels. IMO there is no way Ireland can or will want to afford any kind of meaningful defence on its own. I would like us to act inside the EU frame work and focus on force multipliers. ISTAR, logistics (ships like the ELLIDA) etc. A brace of electronics birds like the RAF Ravens would be very useful and welcome everywhere for instance.
                Ireland could afford a meaningful defence on its own, remember most effective defence is not about beating a potential aggressor but deterring them. As pointed out by many here and by even the current Taoiseach has said if we were to meet the 2% target most of our EU friends have set we would be spending somewhere in the region of €5 billion p/a. And that might be a price we might have to pay in the future!

                While I would welcome more military co-operation in the frame of the EU this is not going to happen as we cannot be relied upon within the framework. For us to deploy anything more than 12 troops we need authorization from the UN SC. This will not always be there when the EU wants to act, especially when the action is not aligned with one or more of the veto members.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  I think the point made was not to be like Russia but to be ready to defend against this type of vessel. They happily sell their ships, fully equipped, to help destabilise other states where our ships may be working.
                  To be fair, the Russians sell downgraded versions just as the Soviets did before them.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    Ireland could afford a meaningful defence on its own, remember most effective defence is not about beating a potential aggressor but deterring them. As pointed out by many here and by even the current Taoiseach has said if we were to meet the 2% target most of our EU friends have set we would be spending somewhere in the region of €5 billion p/a. And that might be a price we might have to pay in the future!

                    While I would welcome more military co-operation in the frame of the EU this is not going to happen as we cannot be relied upon within the framework. For us to deploy anything more than 12 troops we need authorization from the UN SC. This will not always be there when the EU wants to act, especially when the action is not aligned with one or more of the veto members.
                    If we're going to move towards something more than our current BS stance, then the very first thing to go should be the Triple F'king Lock.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                      If we're going to move towards something more than our current BS stance, then the very first thing to go should be the Triple F'king Lock.
                      I can see all the anti-war protesters that were marching outside the Russian embassy going for that!
                      '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


                      • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                        If we're going to move towards something more than our current BS stance, then the very first thing to go should be the Triple F'king Lock.
                        How else is our government supposed to say encouraging things about worldwide crises without having to do anything useful to help?
                        Not having the US, China and the Soviet.. er Russia to rubberstamp all our foreign interventions would only lead to us being able to make a difference.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                          I can see all the anti-war protesters that were marching outside the Russian embassy going for that!
                          The Triple Lock was an Irish expedient position to maintain an otherwise Neutral stance. However together we are stronger and our togetherness should be with Europe. If we stand totally neutral our geographic position as sentinel of the Atlantic will attract occupation. Hiding and hoping the boogeyman will go away is not an option.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            The Triple Lock was an Irish expedient position to maintain an otherwise Neutral stance. However together we are stronger and our togetherness should be with Europe. If we stand totally neutral our geographic position as sentinel of the Atlantic will attract occupation. Hiding and hoping the boogeyman will go away is not an option.
                            The Triple Lock was a stunt by Bertie to deal with the BS claims (from the Shinners and the Left) about us being conscripted into an "EU Army" instead of actually confronting the lie.

                            Comment


                            • It's something that should be challenged. An I right in thinking it's not part of the Constitution?
                              '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


                              • Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                                It's something that should be challenged. An I right in thinking it's not part of the Constitution?
                                Don't think it is, but I could be wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X