3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

source

salmocab wrote: »

Im a bit of a Lurker here, usually have a read without having much knowledge but generally find it interesting, I was just wondering if the new ship is 63 does that mean its the 63rd ship the Navy have brought into commission either old or new, or is there some other system used to get to the 63?

No it's the third vessel in the P60 class. The last class of opv introduced was the P50. There were 2 vessels in this class Roisin and Niamh, P51 and P52.

salmocab

source wrote: »

No it's the third vessel in the P60 class. The last class of opv introduced was the P50. There were 2 vessels in this class Roisin and Niamh, P51 and P52.

Ah that makes sense cheers, I was thinking 63 was a lot of ships alright but thought they might have numbered all sorts of floating things. Thanks for that.

Markcheese

OzCam wrote: »

I was going to make a narky point about the number of ships (aircraft/nurses/firefighters/SNAs/houses/hospices/schools etc) the country could afford if the taxpayers hadn't been gouged out of billions to save stupid mendacious banks... but that would be off-topic.

Anyone care to guess how many ships we could run over the next 30 years for €64 billion?

My apologies to Mr O'Riordan.

It's all a bit academic really !
The last shower had money (couldn't spend the boom money fast enough) , and little (apart from motorways) to show-
They spent little enough on the defence forces - and left it to a broke state to aquire the beckets -
So even if we weren't paying for 60 odd billion in useless bank debt I doubt we'd be anywhere else ( militarily :-) )

Larbre34

They way Jean-Claude Juncker is sabre rattling about EU defences and the Putin threat, you might see defence cohesion funding down the line.

Start writing your shopping lists now, although I imagine air defence will get priority, you could have vessels that fulfill both objectives, a couple of advanced FREMMs would be nice!

IrishTrajan

Larbre34 wrote: »

They way Jean-Claude Juncker is sabre rattling about EU defences and the Putin threat, you might see defence cohesion funding down the line.

Start writing your shopping lists now, although I imagine air defence will get priority, you could have vessels that fulfill both objectives, a couple of advanced FREMMs would be nice!

Unlikely, we'll end up with people screaming "European Super Army why?! Stop the militarization!", and when the Russians come through, shooting, they'll probably think "We'll, thank goodness we spent money on enough hospital beds".

If we're going to come under E.U.-wide defence umbrella, I think that letting the French or British station fighters and be responsible for our air forces would be best. We, as an island, should focus more on naval matters.

FREMMs would probably be a tad expensive-pill for us to swallow, so we'd probably just buy more Becketts and stick people with Javelins on the side.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

They way Jean-Claude Juncker is sabre rattling about EU defences and the Putin threat, you might see defence cohesion funding down the line.

Start writing your shopping lists now, although I imagine air defence will get priority, you could have vessels that fulfill both objectives, a couple of advanced FREMMs would be nice!

Juncker can say plenty of things but there's zero chance of a EU military in any of our lifetimes. There's simply too many factors against it,(domestic, international etc...)

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

Juncker can say plenty of things but there's zero chance of a EU military in any of our lifetimes. There's simply too many factors against it,(domestic, international etc...)

Germany has already put 600 troops under Polish command, and France/Germany regularly send troops to work in similar conditions. The idea of a pan-EU army being centuries away isn't entirely realistic.

I don't know about you, but I'm a sprite young man who easily has another 70 years left in him. A lot can happen in near three-quarters of a century, man.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Germany has already put 600 troops under Polish command, and France/Germany regularly send troops to work in similar conditions. The idea of a pan-EU army being centuries away isn't entirely realistic.

I don't know about you, but I'm a sprite young man who easily has another 70 years left in him. A lot can happen in near three-quarters of a century, man.

Is Germany ( a nation with an aversion to miliaty deployments coming close to us (for example there have been times when police have out numbered army recurits taking their oaths to prevent protesters from interfearing)) going to agree to deploy combat forces to Mali for example under a French military operation? (Consider that Germany didn't take action in Libya while the UK and France were eager for it). Is the Italian Navy going to send frigates to support the UK position in the Falklands? If the UK decides to go with the US into another Middle East country when many of the EU disagree would troops of the EU nations be sent with the UK?

At a high level it makes sense, drill down into what is an isn't supportable by the individual nations and pretty soon other than an Article 5 situation you get opt outs, restrictions (consider the restrictions Germany and others put in troop operations in Afghanistan). Given the wide range of attitudes that exist and most likely will continue to exist assuming a EU military happening is extremely ambitious (even if NATO completely collapsed you are more likely to see a defence alliance than an offensive one).

The only area that might ever make sense (an only because spending profiles make it impossible to sustain otherwise) is in procurement, however the last 50+ years are littered with examples of where even there the EU nations can't work together.

Maoltuile

sparky42 wrote: »

The only area that might ever make sense (an only because spending profiles make it impossible to sustain otherwise) is in procurement, however the last 50+ years are littered with examples of where even there the EU nations can't work together.

Procurement and development are hostages of the capture of western governments by corporate interests (in this case the BAE-style defence supercontractor).

Maoltuile

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Unlikely, we'll end up with people screaming "European Super Army why?! Stop the militarization!", and when the Russians come through, shooting, they'll probably think "We'll, thank goodness we spent money on enough hospital beds".

I had a good look under the bed this morning, and no Russians or Chinese there yet. So I think we're safe for the moment, thank god.

If we're going to come under E.U.-wide defence umbrella, I think that letting the French or British station fighters and be responsible for our air forces would be best.

And they wouldn't allow them to be under Irish command. Supposing someone tries to issue an order to shoot down a passenger plane over a heavily-populated area?

IrishTrajan

Maoltuile wrote: »

I had a good look under the bed this morning, and no Russians or Chinese there yet. So I think we're safe for the moment, thank god.

And they wouldn't allow them to be under Irish command. Supposing someone tries to issue an order to shoot down a passenger plane over a heavily-populated area?

To not prepare for every eventuality, no matter how trivial, is ridiculous. That's why the British and Americans have plans for zombie apocalypse, alien invasions, and such... and the Russians are more likely to end up at war with the E.U. at some point in the future. It's better to have toilet paper and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Our politicians can't even pretend to care about the Defence Forces, and Mr. Tully's comment about the DF being essentially leaches, proves that we don't have the competency of leadership to ever give someone charge over defence.

If I was putting a half dozen of my Eurofighters or JAS39s, I sure as hell wouldn't let someone who only spends 0.48% of GDP on defence control them.

Maoltuile

IrishTrajan wrote: »

To not prepare for every eventuality, no matter how trivial, is ridiculous. That's why the British and Americans have plans for zombie apocalypse, alien invasions, and such... and the Russians are more likely to end up at war with the E.U. at some point in the future. It's better to have toilet paper and not need it, than need it and not have it.

On the other hand, you do have to consider that we don't share a border with any current likely enemy, hell we haven't had a likely foe since Lynch's government decided that the section of PDF on a bridge in Derry wouldn't actually improve the situation there.

And the shiny toys cost an awful lot of money, which could go to education, or healthcare.

Our politicians can't even pretend to care about the Defence Forces, and Mr. Tully's comment about the DF being essentially leaches, proves that we don't have the competency of leadership to ever give someone charge over defence.

Well, there are certainly politicians who have a personal attachment to the DF (and not just those who have served). And I'd put Mr. Tully's comment down to the corrosive (ideological) rotting effects of business degrees on the mind. Especially MBAs.

If I was putting a half dozen of my Eurofighters or JAS39s, I sure as hell wouldn't let someone who only spends 0.48% of GDP on defence control them.

Not really the most germane reason as to why you wouldn't allow a foreign government take control of even part of your defence forces, I'd have thought.

IrishTrajan

Maoltuile wrote: »

On the other hand, you do have to consider that we don't share a border with any current likely enemy, hell we haven't had a likely foe since Lynch's government decided that the section of PDF on a bridge in Derry wouldn't actually improve the situation there.

No, but we take part in humanitarian efforts, and we're responsible for foreign Heads of State, and we contribute to the Nordic Battlegroup which is stationed in Scandinavia and would likely be targeted by any Russian aggression in an initial first strike.

Maoltuile wrote: »

And the shiny toys cost an awful lot of money, which could go to education, or healthcare.

The HSE gets enough funding to meet its requirements. It's misappropriation of those resources that cause the massive hold ups we get. I'd reform the HSE and support us spending more in education, at the cost of cutting our monstrously bloated Social Welfare budget.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Not really the most germane reason as to why you wouldn't allow a foreign government take control of even part of your defence forces, I'd have thought.

If they're the ones paying for and providing the air cover, their officers should have the call. That's what pooling of resources is designed for. We do what we're good at, they do what they're good at.

It's not like we're going to up our Defence Budget by enough to cover the cost of maintaining an active air deterrent anyway.

Maoltuile

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, but we take part in humanitarian efforts, and we're responsible for foreign Heads of State, and we contribute to the Nordic Battlegroup which is stationed in Scandinavia and would likely be targeted by any Russian aggression in an initial first strike.

Oh, please. There's not going to be a "Russian [...] first strike" (or North Korean, Cuban, whatever). We're talking about the real world, not Hollywood movies. Georgia started (a very unwise) war first, and there's plenty of reason to be ambivalent about Ukraine given that the respective positions have all got merit.

The HSE gets enough funding to meet its requirements. It's misappropriation of those resources that cause the massive hold ups we get. I'd reform the HSE and support us spending more in education, at the cost of cutting our monstrously bloated Social Welfare budget.

Off-topic, and irrelevant.

If they're the ones paying for and providing the air cover, their officers should have the call. That's what pooling of resources is designed for. We do what we're good at, they do what they're good at.

Except that this is insanity. We're not in a military alliance, as you'll notice, and no Irish government could ever tolerate an armed foreign military presence on our soil.

It's not like we're going to up our Defence Budget by enough to cover the cost of maintaining an active air deterrent anyway.

I could see an EU subvention (and donations of older fighter types as the token interceptors).

IrishTrajan

Maoltuile wrote: »

Oh, please. There's not going to be a "Russian [...] first strike" (or North Korean, Cuban, whatever). We're talking about the real world, not Hollywood movies. Georgia started (a very unwise) war first, and there's plenty of reason to be ambivalent about Ukraine given that the respective positions have all got merit.

"Yeah, imagine Great Powers with imperialistic ambitions starting wars. That'd never happen" - Kaiser Willhelm II after guaranteeing German support for Austria-Hungary, just before taking his annual boat trip through Scandinavia.

Georgia started the war, to reclaim their territory from Russian-armed and Russian-protected separatists. Russia has a history of bullying their neighbours to suit their purposes.

Maoltuile wrote: »

Off-topic, and irrelevant.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Maoltuile wrote: »

Except that this is insanity. We're not in a military alliance, as you'll notice, and no Irish government could ever tolerate an armed foreign military presence on our soil.

Then we should get our thumbs out of our asses and ensure our territorial integrity against any and all eventualities, rather than hoping the world doesn't take a wrong turn.

Maoltuile wrote: »

I could see an EU subvention (and donations of older fighter types as the token interceptors).

Fat lot of good that'd do us, if we can't even afford to maintain them, and if the runway isn't suitably heat-resistant. They'd just take up space and offer us nothing.

Morpheus

if all of the money in the annual DF budget was given to them, it wouldnt last four weeks in running the HSE. this is a known fact. anyone who disagrees with this is talking out of their hat.

Maoltuile

IrishTrajan wrote: »

"Yeah, imagine Great Powers with imperialistic ambitions starting wars. That'd never happen" - Kaiser Willhelm II after guaranteeing German support for Austria-Hungary, just before taking his annual boat trip through Scandinavia.

Are there power blocs lined up and armed to the teeth? No. You're a lunatic.

Georgia started the war, to reclaim their territory from Russian-armed and Russian-protected separatists. Russia has a history of bullying their neighbours to suit their purposes.

As much as we may regret it (apart from those who insist on using it as justification for British colonisation here), bigger countries do bully smaller ones in their neighbourhood. Russia, China, USA, take your pick.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

I didn't bring up the question of whether or not spending on various items of non-military budgets is efficient or not, *you* did.

Then we should get our thumbs out of our asses and ensure our territorial integrity against any and all eventualities, rather than hoping the world doesn't take a wrong turn.

I'd suggest you get acquainted with the Civilisation games. They'll scratch that itch for you.

Fat lot of good that'd do us, if we can't even afford to maintain them, and if the runway isn't suitably heat-resistant. They'd just take up space and offer us nothing.

I'd also suggest that you get a dictionary and look up the word 'subvention'.

IrishTrajan

Maoltuile wrote: »

Are there power blocs lined up and armed to the teeth? No. You're a lunatic.

Russian launching military drills on the border of Finland and Ukraine, practicing nuclear attack scenarios with Belarus. The U.S. is launching military training operations in the Baltics and Poland. The Chinese Navy ramming other ships around the Spratley islands... Yeah, the world's a peaceful place and hegemonic powers don't still grumble.

Maoltuile wrote: »

As much as we may regret it (apart from those who insist on using it as justification for British colonisation here), bigger countries do bully smaller ones in their neighbourhood. Russia, China, USA, take your pick.

I agree with you, but is there a point to this?

Maoltuile wrote: »

I didn't bring up the question of whether or not spending on various items of non-military budgets is efficient or not, *you* did.

We were talking about the military, you implied diverting funds into the HSE and Education is more important. I argued against it. You brought up the topic, and then dismissed it as irrelevant.

Unless you're talking about my post about "at least we spent enough on hospital beds", which was sardonic.

Maoltuile wrote: »

I'd suggest you get acquainted with the Civilisation games. They'll scratch that itch for you.

I prefer the Total War series, they're pretty fun. Supreme Commander is alright, as is most Paradox interactive games (I haven't played Victoria, so I can't really comment on it). EU4 was probably my favourite. It's more geopolitically centred.

Maoltuile wrote: »

I'd also suggest that you get a dictionary and look up the word 'subvention'.

We had to draw blood from stone to get money from the Germans for the bailout. You think they're going to cough up the money for us, when their own military is so under-equipped it had to use broomsticks instead of guns, and civilian trucks instead of military trucks during training operations?

The E.U. is hardly going to hand us €100m a year to lease a few Gripens when we refuse to even raise the question of increasing military spending in the Dáil or Seanad.

Yawlboy

So any news on what P63 is going to be called?

sparky42

Yawlboy wrote: »

So any news on what P63 is going to be called?

At this stage I bet it will be announced at Joyce's commissing.

Boreas

sparky42 wrote: »

At this stage I bet it will be announced at Joyce's commissing.

Any idea what was on the short list? Is LÉ W.B. Yeats more or less the only likely option?

Markcheese

So is JJ in service but not commissioned ? Would there be many problems to iron out- ?

IrishTrajan

Boreas wrote: »

Any idea what was on the short list? Is LÉ W.B. Yeats more or less the only likely option?

LÉ Yeats has a ring to it, and would make sense to commemorate his birth 150 years later.

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

So is JJ in service but not commissioned ? Would there be many problems to iron out- ?

She's not in service yet, she hasn't been released to us from the yard yet as far as I know. Beckett didn't seem to have many problems so hopefully Joyce should be fine.

Larbre34

It would be nice to have LE James Joyce commissioned in Dun Laoghaire. The area is synonymous with Joyce and his work, the museum etc.

Bloomsday is celebrated in mid-June and would be perfect, but that might be longer than the DoD want to hold off on the commissioning ceremony as she will be delivered during April.

roundymac

AFAIA Yeat's family have objected to the suggestion of naming one of the ships after him.

Boreas

Stephen Joyce, 81, who is also the executor of his grandfather’s estate, wrote to Alan Shatter on July 15 asking the defence minister to abandon his plan to call an €58m offshore patrol vessel the LE James Joyce.

The author’s sole surviving direct descendant, who lives in France, considers the boat a “warship” and has told Shatter his grandfather’s “battles were artistic and literary, not for Irish self-determination or any other cause”. He also pointed out that the author was born and died a British subject, and never applied for Irish citizenship in the 20 years after independence in 1921.

The above is from the UK Sunday Times. I hadn't heard that there was also an objection from Yeats' family.

Larbre34

That whole issue was raised with Shatter before the naming scheme began. I agreed with it at the time, I thought they should have gone with a naming scheme of well known Irish port cities or Islands/archipelagoes.

But Shatter being Shatter.........

nowecant

I always thought it would be nice to name the ships for Irish soldiers who died on UN duty.

Does anyone know when the 2015 defense white paper is meant to come out? I would love to see funding in it for an EPV, even if it was much further down the line.

Heraldoffreeent

nowecant wrote: »

I always thought it would be nice to name the ships for Irish soldiers who died on UN duty.

Does anyone know when the 2015 defense white paper is meant to come out? I would love to see funding in it for an EPV, even if it was much further down the line.

Supposed to be July, but we've heard that before. Apparently theres a steering group set up now under John Minihane which will seek input from other partners who operate with DFI in the Nordic Battlegroup, PSO operations etc.

Bear in mind that we're 12 months minus out from an election, so a white paper that proposes any large expenditure for the DF is going to be as popular as a beer fart in a two man tent with the electorate.