Expand the Naval service.

purple'n'gold

I think the question of us having a proper air force has been flogged to death here. It’s probably never going to happen; we will continue to look to the RAF for aerial protection into the future. But surely as an island nation we definitely need to enlarge our naval service to a respectable size. 8 small patrol vessels is just too small for an island this size. We need frigate size vessels, about 10 of them 3,5000 tonnes displacement.

Nuttzz

who are you going to get to man them? There is little appetite for a naval service career that requires you to spend weeks at sea with young people, there are easier and better paid jobs to be had these days

purple'n'gold

Other European countries with decent size navies have no great difficulty in manning their fleets, why should we be any different?

Maskhadov

crew size has went down a lot in new vessels

newby.204

Because the budget isnt there fo what your talking about!! We dont have the money!! wish all you want

Vorsprung

newby.204 wrote:

Because the budget isnt there fo what your talking about!! We dont have the money!! wish all you want

I think we do have the money, but we lack the will. Things might change if FG gets into power though!

FG site wrote:

Overstretched navy cannot cope with increased Irish sea territory - Timmins

Fine Gael Defence Spokesman, Billy Timmins TD, has today (Wednesday) welcomed moves to increase the Irish sea bed but warned that the Irish Navy needs significant extra resources if they are to patrol this enlarged area.

"Extending the continental shelf has the potential of delivering large benefits in mineral rights but it will certainly put an extra strain on our already overstretched navy.

"The Navy is already under-resourced and, as a result, often struggles to effectively patrol Irish waters. The massive estimated amounts of illegal drugs that are transported by boat highlight the major challenges our navy faces and, instead of making their task harder, the Government must provide the necessary resources.

"Budget 2007 contained very little for the Defence Forces and there are absolutely no plans or programmes to expand the navy. The Defence Minister must now outline what plans the Government will implement to allow the Navy effectively police and patrol potential new Irish waters.

"Failure to do so will not only act as a further barrier to the Defence Forces but will also aid the criminal gangs who are flooding the State with illegal drugs."

cork1

undermanned isnt as bad as it seems if there were better ships people would be more inclined to join in my opinion.

Judt

I think that the NS has one of the best cases for needing more money for things like that. But it has already come along in leaps and bounds over the old days. I'd say that if (with a capital I) there is more money to be had, that's where it'll go.

Steyr

bigjimthefirst wrote:

I think we do have the money, but we lack the will. Things might change if FG gets into power though!

I really do hope so! Come on Enda!

Steyr

This is the proposed P20 Class replacement.













What do yo think?

Maskhadov

nice vessel, maybe we need a sister ship for overseas deployments.

However we really need larger vessels than the current ones in the Navy.

purple'n'gold

The Fridtjof Nansen class of frigates, for the Royal Norwegian Navy, are 5,121 tonnes and only need a compliment of about 130. And that includes the helicopter crew. This is what we need

Vorsprung

purplengold wrote:

The Fridtjof Nansen class of frigates, for the Royal Norwegian Navy, are 5,121 tonnes and only need a compliment of about 130. And that includes the helicopter crew. This is what we need

Not quite. We need a multi role vessel, not one purely for patrol duties. This includes an ability to carry stores, equipment, vehicles and with an option to carry a helicopter (just for future-proofing). It also should be able to defend itself it it were to come under small arms fire while delivering the above during humanitarian missions, which is one of the big reasons why we's be getting the ship at all.

The Meko which Steyr posted pictures of comes in at about, while that ship for Norway costs $3 billion for 5. Ok so we wouldn't need have the kit on it, but I think it's too big and too expensive. The MEKO is only about 4000t

Plus it's the one favoured by the NS apparently:

Irish Indo wrote:

THE Navy is to get two new ships - one of which is likely to be the largest ever operated by the service.

In a radical departure, a new multi-role vessel (MRV) will be able to carry troops and armoured vehicles on UN or EU Battlegroup missions and deliver them to the latest hot spot worldwide. It will also be the most expensive and capable ship ever built for the Naval Service if, as expected, the Government gives the go-ahead later this year.

Two new larger ships are needed within the next three years because 'LE Emer' and 'LE Aoife' will both have reached the end of their 30-year lives.

Two new ships built in the UK for the Naval Service in the last few years cost €50m, but the new ships are expected to be much more costly.

Naval experts are now studying exactly what type of new ships will be needed to support the Defence Forces up to 2040. A report will then be submitted to Defence Minister Willie O'Dea.

Military experts were greatly impressed by the Royal Netherlands Navy ship 'Rotterdam' which was used in Liberia for amphibious landings of Irish troops and armoured vehicles.

Equipped with a hospital and helicopter, it was able to provide excellent accommodation, hot meals and showers for weary Irish troops coming off patrol.

But at 14,000 tons it is too big for Ireland's needs and experts are looking at the much smaller Meko 200 MRV built by Blohm and Voss in Germany which could carry Irish armoured personnel carriers on deck as well as troops.

Another MRV has been bought by the Royal New Zealand Navy and is able to carry 250 troops, 16 Mowag armoured vehicles and trucks as well as helicopters and landing craft.

Ireland has committed a 200-strong company of troops in armoured personnel carriers to the EU Battlegroup concept.

But it has no means of transporting them apart from using commercial carriers or by asking for help from other Battlegroup members, such as Sweden.

The Government is setting up a new humanitarian disaster corps to respond to natural disasters like the tsunami, but there is no means of transporting volunteers or aid independently.

Another argument being made in favour of a larger ship is that Ireland could submit a claim to the UN for sovereign rights over our continental shelf extending far beyond the 200-mile limit which would also have to be patrolled by the Navy.

Mr O'Dea has confirmed the two ships are due for replacement between 2007 and 2009 and expects a submission will be made to him for decision later this year.

Link

Even Maskhadov saw the light! So it must be good!

OS119

cork1 wrote:

undermanned isnt as bad as it seems if there were better ships people would be more inclined to join in my opinion.

indeed, people don't join Navies so they spend their careers looking at their own coastline.

bigger OPV's are required purely because of the expansion of the economic zone, the current classes won't be able to effectively patrol the zone because the weather out their is significantly worse than closer inshore. bigger ships are required for larger waves. added to which is that most of the NS vessels need replacing in the next decade anyway, so save some cash and buy 8 I/OPV's and the MRV's in one deal from the same shipyard rather than the peicemeal method which costs more...

the two MRV/LPD's in addition to OPV's could operate as 'normal' patrol vessels when not employed on UN/EU overseas missions and needn't be hideously expensive. the 21,000 ton LPH HMS Ocean (4 personell/vehicle landing craft, 16 medium support helicopters, ships crew of 200, 'air wing' of 280 and 1200 embarked personel) cost only £150million. its cheap compared to CVS because it doesn't have the systems that make high-end warships expensive, its just a sailing barracks with an airfield on top. the Albion class LPD's were marginally more expensive, but not much. counter that with the absolute top of the range 'Daring' class 8,000 ton Air Warfare Destroyer, which has a price tag of £1 billion. each.

its not the size of ships that make then expensive, it what you put in them.

an MRV/LPD/LPH supporting either a peacekeeping or humanitarian op (the most likely tasking) needs only an Air/SeaSearch radar to control Air and Sea traffic and to provide rudimentory air defence - the beef of which would be MANPADS that the DF already own - a C3 suite to run the op, and the ability to get forces and aid ashore without a deep water port being available. small calibre weapons from 7.62mm to 20mm can keep the vessel safe from any realistic surface threat, all of which the DF own anyway.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1772

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.00h001001005002

Steyr

Royal Netherlands Navy ship 'Rotterdam' ..Some ship!

Nuttzz

purplengold wrote:

Other European countries with decent size navies have no great difficulty in manning their fleets, why should we be any different?

we dont have a naval tradition that other countries have, the interest isnt there. given then option for earning €450 a week and having to spend it on a ship for 20+ weeks a year or doing earning the same in a office and getting to go home to your wife or girlfriend I know what most people would do.

pay would have to go up and hours would have to go down, a bit like the nurses , see how that is working out for them at the moment and they have a lot of public support, the military in ireland and generally looked at with a "what do we need them for" attitude.

Ruen

Thats basic, add in sea going allowance and you're up to €800 at least.

Nuttzz

many years ago there used to be waiting lists to join the defence forces, now there isnt, why is that? the opportunities are better in the civie world, even for €800 a week it is a lot to ask someone to spend most of the year away from their families, thats grand when your in your early 20's but you would be well tried of it by your early 30's. I have a friend who is a sparks on an oil rig he works 3 weeks on 3 off at home, flights board paid for etc, he is on much much more money that €800 a week

OS119

Nuttzz wrote:

many years ago there used to be waiting lists to join the defence forces, now there isnt, why is that? the opportunities are better in the civie world, even for €800 a week it is a lot to ask someone to spend most of the year away from their families, thats grand when your in your early 20's but you would be well tried of it by your early 30's. I have a friend who is a sparks on an oil rig he works 3 weeks on 3 off at home, flights board paid for etc, he is on much much more money that €800 a week

military service, whether on Land, Sea or Air, is a vocation. that it is seen - in Ireland - as a job reflects on the lack of the most vital part of a 'vocation'.

purpose.

fishery protection isn't a purpose in life, its a civil service job with the opportunity to get wet.

the Irish military isn't starved of a great purpose because it doesn't have swathes of ships at anchor, fast jets on the ramp at Baldonnell and legions of steely-eyed dealers of death champing on the bit at the Curragh, its starved of Equipment because it doesn't have a role. it serves no purpose.

purpose is a political issue, not a procurement one.

Ruen

Nuttzz wrote:

many years ago there used to be waiting lists to join the defence forces, now there isnt, why is that? the opportunities are better in the civie world, even for €800 a week it is a lot to ask someone to spend most of the year away from their families, thats grand when your in your early 20's but you would be well tried of it by your early 30's. I have a friend who is a sparks on an oil rig he works 3 weeks on 3 off at home, flights board paid for etc, he is on much much more money that €800 a week

There were no jobs many years ago and the defence forces was a safe choice. There's alot of opportunities in the naval service for advancement and training, a diver for instance would be on near enough the same as your friend.

Nuttzz

sure a diver would earn well, but on the outside how much use is that trade to him? do naval service staff get 6 weeks pay for 3 weeks work? when my friend gets off the rig for 3 weeks he can get as much work as he wants, I doubt the diver would have the same opportunity. The naval service isnt seen as a good career option, that could be down to perception or marketing, look at the job the royal navy does of promoting itself, all the defence forces advertisments show is lads (and lassies) on an inflatable boat

Ruen

Nuttzz wrote:

sure a diver would earn well, but on the outside how much use is that trade to him? do naval service staff get 6 weeks pay for 3 weeks work? when my friend gets off the rig for 3 weeks he can get as much work as he wants, I doubt the diver would have the same opportunity. The naval service isnt seen as a good career option, that could be down to perception or marketing, look at the job the royal navy does of promoting itself, all the defence forces advertisments show is lads (and lassies) on an inflatable boat

Alot, 70% of the earths surface is covered in water, anyway you obviously have an answer about how great working on an oil rig is just to contradict anything good I have to say about the Naval Service so I wont bother arguing with you, I'll just say that alot of people enjoy careers in the Naval Service and the salary isnt something to be quipped at either but it obviously just isnt good enough for some people....my God how do people get by not working in the greatest job in the world:rolleyes:

Nuttzz

you dont like one example so you throw in the towel, fair enough. I have no doubt that the naval people enjoy their jobs and are dedicated to what they do, however as an island nation we dont have a massive seafaring tradition that you might expect. my point about other jobs is that the celtic tiger has put strains on recruiting people to harder jobs, look at countryside migration and the decline in small farming for a start.

purple'n'gold

Up until 1922 we were part of the United Kingdom. Our navy then was the Royal Navy and it has tradition coming out of its ears. Many Irishmen served with distinction in the Royal Navy. We are now an independent and self sufficient nation and its time we built up our own traditions.

Nuttzz

purplengold wrote:

Up until 1922 we were part of the United Kingdom. Our navy then was the Royal Navy and it has tradition coming out of its ears. Many Irishmen served with distinction in the Royal Navy. We are now an independent and self sufficient nation and its time we built up our own traditions.

you are correct but look how the irish men who fought in WWI were airbrushed out of history, the same has applied to the naval traditions imho

purple'n'gold

Hopefully we have grown up a bit since the cavemen with the airbrush were ruling us.

Borzoi

OS119 wrote:

the Irish military isn't starved of a great purpose because it doesn't have swathes of ships at anchor, ........ its starved of Equipment because it doesn't have a role. it serves no purpose.

purpose is a political issue, not a procurement one.

Of all the forces the Navy has the most purpose, beyond defence of the realm, which is, hopefully, unlikely to be required.

Fishery Protection
Aid to the Civil Power
Drug Interdiction
Maritime Safety
Diving Operations
Pollution Control
Overseas Mission Support

Many of these roles could also be performed by a Coastgaurd, but one undwerfunded agancy is better than two underfunded agencies

OS119

Borzoi wrote:

Of all the forces the Navy has the most purpose, beyond defence of the realm, which is, hopefully, unlikely to be required.

Fishery Protection
Aid to the Civil Power
Drug Interdiction
Maritime Safety
Diving Operations
Pollution Control
Overseas Mission Support

Many of these roles could also be performed by a Coastgaurd, but one undwerfunded agancy is better than two underfunded agencies

the only 'Naval' mission is the overseas deployment support.

given the minimal abilities of any of the current NS vessels to affect in anyway the conduct of a land deployment (the AC no longer operates helicopters from ships, they can provide no air defence to land forces, and the vessels aren't big enough to land troops or equipment) then i would suggest that having an Irish OPV hanging around the Liberian coast is purely a flag-waving exercise, rather than a deployment of an asset able to alter the ground situation in line with State objectives.

the NS has seven roles, but only one of them is a 'Naval' role and its play acting at that.

thats not a purpose in search of a capability, thats an ego in search of justication.

micdug

Borzoi wrote:

Fishery Protection
Aid to the Civil Power
Drug Interdiction
Maritime Safety
Diving Operations
Pollution Control

That is a coastguard.

Judt

micdug wrote:

That is a coastguard.

Well, we call it a Naval Service. But no point in having a navy just so as we can say "Hey, we have a navy."

Borzoi

OS119 wrote:

the only 'Naval' mission is the overseas deployment support.

the NS has seven roles, but only one of them is a 'Naval' role and its play acting at that.

If you follow that logic, split the NS into a Navy and a Coastgaurd. You'll then find the Navy sitting around doing SFA, maybe visiting foreign ports etc. Meanwhile the CG are up to there eyes in things. Eventyually all the money will go to the CG as they can demonstrate a significant use for their fleet, as opposed to an occasional support role for the Army that you're proposing. If the force is kepot uniifed there is more logic in better funding the NS as a whole BECAUSE it has so many roles to perform.

Yes the Navy should carry on what it's doing, but be better funded. In my mind it is the most relevant of the 3 services

OS119 wrote:

thats not a purpose in search of a capability, thats an ego in search of justication.

What????

micdug wrote:

That is a coastguard.

Borzoi wrote:

Many of these roles could also be performed by a Coastgaurd.

Yes as I pointed out

irishsurfer

Naval Service / Coastguard.
We have one maritime enforcement agency with many functions.
It is very important.

The minimum requirement advised to adequetly patrol our Sea Area is:
Primary
2 HPV - Helicopter patrol Vessels. Some would argue 3 HPV
6 OPV - Offshore Patrol Vessels
4 CPV - Coatal Patrol Vessel
Auxillary
2 Ocean Going Tugs with Dive Support capability.
4 APV - Auxilliary Patrol Vessel

Currently we have
1 HPV with an under-used Air capability.
2 Roisin class OPV - excellent for its job
2 or 3 modified Dierdre class OPV. Ending their service life.
2 Peacock CPV. Excellent vessels, but will need to be replaces.

The Graine Uaille Irish Lights vessel has acted in an auxilliary role in dive support at times.
The Celtic Voyager has also fufilled an auxilliary role at times.
The Celtic Explorer can also be drafted in an emergency.

None of the above have real Tug capability, thats important.
The nearest Ocean tug I know of on standby is in Devonport.

Suggested HPV type by many is Thetis class from Denmark.
I agree with this.
Specifically designed for endurance in the North Atlantic, small crew.
Designed to do the Greenland Fisheries station.
Excellent FRC Launch and recovery capability.
Has OTO Melera Main Gun so the NS has experience with those.
It does not, as standard carry Anti Ship or Anti Aircraft Missiles.
The ship is modular, so if ever such systems were needed could be retro-fitted.

A slightly altered version has a stern ramp and designated cargo space.
I remain un-convinced for the need of transport, commercial shipping can cover heavy lift.

The Thetis operates Helicoptors up to Merlin/S61 size up to sea state 7.

Personally I think the NS should have an organic rotary airwing with its own aircrew.
Aircraft should be selected for commonality with AirCorps helicopters, e.g.AW139 Wolfhound, reducing purchase,maintainence,training and parts costs

The Roisin type is ideally suited to its job in OPV/CPV.

APVs are fairly straight forward.

cushtac

irishsurfer wrote:

Currently we have 1 HPV with an under-used Air capability.

It's a completely unused air capability & has been for a long time. The Dauphins have been disposed of and Eithne's hangar space is now used for storage etc.

irishsurfer

hence the need for an integrated air capability.
If the NS dont get their own aircraft, then there is no real point in investing money in building a hanger and accom for aircrew.

Nuttzz

why are helis needed at sea? dont the casas do that job?

jmayo

Nuttzz wrote:

why are helis needed at sea? dont the casas do that job?

What happens if need to get to emergency 100 miles off Achill, is it not easier for heli on ship 20 miles out to get to scene before heli based at Finner camp??

Note emergency here could be something like the Air India crash back in 1980s when vessels converged on crash site to recover wreckage and bodies.

Helicopters extend the range of the ship and act as deterrent to fash moving craft.
Helicopter can be used to help track vessels, to board ships, to carry supplies, crews etc ...

Nuttzz

the UK used land based choppers for all their SAR, bad weather might not allow for heli ops

irishsurfer

If the Naval Service is to have an air capability, to expand search peramiters, for boarding, interdiction or SAR then it should be integrated into the NS - going on past performance the AC cannot, or more to the point, will not provide this aspect of service.

OS119

Nuttzz wrote:

the UK used land based choppers for all their SAR, bad weather might not allow for heli ops

the UK uses land based - RN, RAF and civillian contractors to HM Coastguard - helicopters for its dedicated SAR provision, but the RN helicopters (Lynx, Merlin and Sea King) on board RN vessels also undertake SAR taskings, both on an ad hoc basis worldwide and as a 'declared' asset in the UK's statutary sea areas.

on a number of occasions RAF and RN SAR Sea Kings have conducted 'hot' refuelings while perched on RN warships that aren't quite big enough to take a Sea King in normal operations, thus massively increasing their time on station, rather than having to return to land bases to refuel.

the ideal is obviously a helicopter that can do traditional in-flight refueling and to have low-speed tankers that can refuel them, the USAF CSAR MH-53's in southern England have regularly done civilian rescues way out in the Atlantic where the RAF/RN/HMCG heli's cant get to without a convenient warship to refuel on - however precariously.

maintaining a skill/equipment base where helis can operate from NS patrol vessels is vital, particularly given Irelands responsibilities in its new 200 mile economic zone. if those helis can be part of the AC then that just makes more sense - after all RAF and British Army helicopters regularly deploy about RN vessels and conduct operations while on board - having a seperate NS flying arm for what might only be 2 or 3 operational NS helis would be ridiculous. if the AC Helicopter wing needs a little shake-up until it understands that its role is to support all Irish military operations, rather than just the warm, dry, safe ones with a comfortable bed at the end of each day then so be it...

irishsurfer

Hey OS119 - I agree with 90% of what you have said in this and other topics.
However, I am fully convinced of the practicality of an NS airwing.

I think it has been demonstrated that the AirCorps will not be 'shook up'.
They had 20 years to develop shipboard operations, and never fully did.
If its broke its time to fix it.

Countries such as Denmark, Belgium and the Nederlands with small navies have the airwing as organic to the maritime operations side.

About maintaining skills, Inhover refueling is a fairly standard operation. I have done it on merchant vessels.

With regard to longrange SAR I have always been in favour of helos with MH-53/Seahawk capability of in-flight refueling twinned with an MPA with buddy tanks such as the C130.

This would be run by A/C

An airwing of 4/6 birds as part of the NS on 2/3 HPVs where 1st and 2nd level maintainence can be done in the naval service.

The only condition I would make is that the Aircraft would be very copatable with A/C e.g. the same aircraft 'navalised' or the same avionics and powerplant.
This would standardise training and 3rd level maintainence.

Maskhadov

There is €250bn of oil off the irish coast. We can well afford a 30 ship navy.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ireland-on-the-verge-of-an-oil-and-gas-bonanza-679889.html

irishsurfer

We dont need a 30 ship navy, we dont need a 20 ship navy, it would serve no purpose and the money is better spent elsewhere.

I have no idea what purpose a 30 ship Irish navy would serve.

Just for starterd crewing one of such size would be unfeasable.

What is required has been already outlined.

Irish Maritime requirements are very simple, as is the fast jet question.

Question 1:
What is a prudent and realistic requirement
Question 2:
What is a practical and realistic answer

Anyway, its not our oil or gas, it was sold to Shell and Marathon for 500 pounds.

The Irish exchecker will get Zero from the Oil and Gas reserves.

Thank the people who will be elected into the next government - whoever they are.

But that is a seperate debate.

OS119

nationalising oil/gas reserves is not unknown in the history of the world.

i've no real understanding of how the IG flogged off rights to the oil/gas fields, but i can guarrantee that should the day come when Irish factories have to shut down because friend Putin is playing monkey business with his gas supply then the Shell contract won't be worth the paper its written on.

'legal reasons' won't wash with the politicians when the lights go off and tankers full of LNG are heading westwards.

(this isn't a political commentary on the rights and wrongs of selling assets to private entities, merely a bald statement of fact. governments fall when the lights go out, forced to choose between political disaster and legal unpleasentness your politician will opt for that which keeps his seat warm.)

irishsurfer

I know its getting off the point -
But it is an utter discrace with the current oil and gas situation.

I dont advocate nationalising the system, but we should have a Norwegian system where the state profits from its natural resouces and industry.
That is, the state should benefit from the oil and gas.

Shell and Marathon paid the state 500 pounds for all the exclusive gas and oil rights- thats all we will get.
You can thank FF and more specifically Since 1987, after the appointment of Ray Burke (Minister for Energy) by Taoiseach Charles Haughey, Ireland forfeited its stakehold, participation and royalties in any oil or gas find in Irish territory.
Currently a consortium of Royal Dutch Shell (45%), the Norwegian state company Statoil (36.5%) and US based Marathon (18.5%) are the exclusive owners of gas from the Corrib Field. Frank Fahy was also a major player


I guess it is to the point that if the AirCorps and Naval Service are expanded, offshore oil and gas installations will be included in that remit.

Taxes pay for that.

But as it stands at the moment, the Irish state will not get one cent from the exploitation of our oil and gas. Nowhere in the world do oil corporations have a better deal, even Nigeria got a better deal despite corruption and years of military rule.

Therefore Shell/Marathon should have to pay corporate taxes like every other business on the Island.

Even at a low rate it would pay for all the hospitals, roads, social services and national development.

It would also pay for Ships and Aircraft

Clare gunner

Yeah,only trouble is;how do you keep the plants then running,if you make a grab for them?All well to nationalise the refinery,but if your personel dont know the special ins and outs of running it,or procuring the spare parts,you will be just as quick in the dark.Ireland "might" have all this reserve gas /oil whatever.But we dont have the refineing capability etc.Thats where they have us.If we had the facilites to process the crude gas.We could negotiate a deal.Nil chance of that happening.

OS119

Clare gunner wrote:

Yeah,only trouble is;how do you keep the plants then running,if you make a grab for them?All well to nationalise the refinery,but if your personel dont know the special ins and outs of running it,or procuring the spare parts,you will be just as quick in the dark.Ireland "might" have all this reserve gas /oil whatever.But we dont have the refineing capability etc.Thats where they have us.If we had the facilites to process the crude gas.We could negotiate a deal.Nil chance of that happening.

Shell aren't the only perveyors of refining/drilling capability.

you have 10 billion bls of the black stuff, plus a natural gas field and no territorial disputes. you can make any fcuking deal you like.

unless you actually rely on the Irish field to keep the lights on you don't need to have it up and running. with every day that its not being exploited it grows more valuable, so give it a year you'll have the big boys queuing up to do a deal, or you could pay the Norwegians or Brits to educate a generation of Irish engineers in order to exploit the field as a national concern, it requires a capital investment and patience, but then its all yours...

irishsurfer

As OS119 says, it should be that we tell the industrialists what we want, not the other way round.
And Clare Gunner - As I said, I dont advocte nationalising reserves, but getting something out of the deal more than 500 punts