3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Markcheese

Dohvolle wrote: »

Nice idea, but try selling that in Dail eireann against an opposition of peacniks and former terrorists and their supporters.

Yup , and to be honest a floating anti-air , anti submarine ,anti - ship missile platform isn't really where Ireland is as a nation ..

As sparky said earlier even putting in the basic sensor architecture ,to then upgrade to fancy weapons systems later would blow the budget sky high ,
Still if we expect a vessel like this to be able to operate in conflict hotspots , then it needs to be able to defend itself somewhat ..

Larbre34

Indeed.

Its either a Naval ship or its a fleet auxiliary / hospital ship though. Might as well just get a cargo vessel if these other points are even going to be considered.

mikeym

IMO we dont need a Canterbury type ship.

Widdensushi

Larbre34 wrote: »

There are a few absolute basics that I think this vessel *should* be equipped for. Whether it will or not depends on having voices of reason in the right jobs over the next while.

1) Full ocean going blue water naval architecture. No Ro-Pax ferries painted grey, thanks.

2) Medium lift naval helicopter operations. Either one or two rescue/sealift/patrol aircraft embarked. The fact we are a maritime nation with zero air/sea presence is beyond laughable and inexcusable. I don't want any fobbing off about being "enabled" for heli-ops, I want aircraft procured and naval pilots trained in paralle with the ship build, to hit the ground running, so to speak.

3) A full suite of anti air and anti ship vertical launched missles and torpedoes to be specced.
This vessel should be able to be anchored off any of our major cities or installations as a mobile air and sea defence platform and likewise for the protection of our overseas deployments into hostile area under UN mandate.

I presume this is a wind up, have you costings for this type of vessel? Where will the staff come from? I presume they would mostly have to be trained abroad for the equipment you are talking about? Is there a fantasy forum that would be more suited for this, or maybe a discussion on the American navy where this vessel would be more suitable??

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

I presume this is a wind up, have you costings for this type of vessel? Where will the staff come from? I presume they would mostly have to be trained abroad for the equipment you are talking about? Is there a fantasy forum that would be more suited for this, or maybe a discussion on the American navy where this vessel would be more suitable??

You know that what he's laying out is a basic naval warship that is in service with any number of nations of the same population/economy as us, the idea that something like this is "for the American Navy" is ignoring all of the European Navies. Hell even New Zealand has a couple of Frigates along with the Canterbury...

sparky42

mikeym wrote: »

IMO we dont need a Canterbury type ship.

Again I suppose it comes down to where priorities have been made for her, is she meant to be able to deploy and support Irish forces on EU/UN missions then she's capable of transport but would need some else protecting her potentially depending on the situation.


On the otherhand something like the Absalon could have some self protection depending on how it's fitted out, but has less carrying/self deploying capability.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

You know that what he's laying out is a basic naval warship that is in service with any number of nations of the same population/economy as us, the idea that something like this is "for the American Navy" is ignoring all of the European Navies. Hell even New Zealand has a couple of Frigates along with the Canterbury...

We are basically a neutral country, warfare is not our business, if it was the eu would take care of it, fishery protection, a bit of customs, drugs etc, the odd courtesy visit and the odd humanitarian act to make our people feel better is all that is required.

punchdrunk

Widdensushi wrote: »

We are basically a neutral country, warfare is not our business, if it was the eu would take care of it, fishery protection, a bit of customs, drugs etc, the odd courtesy visit and the odd humanitarian act to make our people feel better is all that is required.

Indeed, it’ll be half arsed like almost everything our government touches.

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

We are basically a neutral country, warfare is not our business, if it was the eu would take care of it, fishery protection, a bit of customs, drugs etc, the odd courtesy visit and the odd humanitarian act to make our people feel better is all that is required.

No, no it isn't, but there's little point in trying to debate that with you.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

No, no it isn't, but there's little point in trying to debate that with you.

I agree, you have a very different opinion on this, too far apart, however I stick with my opinion that an an Irish navy should consist of smaller vessels, such as the dual engine French vessels with a 200 mile limit and larger vessels for humanitarian aid etc

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

I agree, you have a very different opinion on this, too far apart, however I stick with my opinion that an an Irish navy should consist of smaller vessels, such as the dual engine French vessels with a 200 mile limit and larger vessels for humanitarian aid etc

The Navy already has 6 and likely to end up with 8 of those more than enough to handle Irish Waters, however what you seem to be suggesting is that for the largest single spend on defence in the history of the State for something that is going to be in service for likely 40 years we make no provision for anything beyond the most basic of self defence capabilities. Just because our MOWAGs are painted white doesn't stop people trying to blow them up, what makes you think the MRV might never face hostile action if deployed?


It makes no sense, we have no idea what might happen over that period, and due to politics and service issues we've already hampered the P60's for their lifetime by not specing at least the capacity for landing a helicopter if not a hanger. At the bare minimum the MRV should have the more advance model of the 76mm, and capacity for at least short range VLS system and the Radar and Combat Management Systems for same built in.

As for "neutrality", have you noticed the other EU Neutral nations have all announced significant increases in defence spending this year alone?

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

The Navy already has 6 and likely to end up with 8 of those more than enough to handle Irish Waters, however what you seem to be suggesting is that for the largest single spend on defence in the history of the State for something that is going to be in service for likely 40 years we make no provision for anything beyond the most basic of self defence capabilities. Just because our MOWAGs are painted white doesn't stop people trying to blow them up, what makes you think the MRV might never face hostile action if deployed?


It makes no sense, we have no idea what might happen over that period, and due to politics and service issues we've already hampered the P60's for their lifetime by not specing at least the capacity for landing a helicopter if not a hanger. At the bare minimum the MRV should have the more advance model of the 76mm, and capacity for at least short range VLS system and the Radar and Combat Management Systems for same built in.

As for "neutrality", have you noticed the other EU Neutral nations have all announced significant increases in defence spending this year alone?

They are too big,they don't have crew, that problem is not going away, irish people don't want to go to sea, the few that currently do will probably go to the offshore windfarms as you get to be ashore regularly /nightly. This issue is only going to grow, I presume you envisage irish warship s with little or no irish onboard, while fine it is not likely to be an easy sell to the Irish people.

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

They are too big,they don't have crew, that problem is not going away, irish people don't want to go to sea, the few that currently do will probably go to the offshore windfarms as you get to be ashore regularly /nightly. This issue is only going to grow, I presume you envisage irish warship s with little or no irish onboard, while fine it is not likely to be an easy sell to the Irish people.

They are the smallest hulls that the Navy has decided can sustainable operate off the West Coast, that's fact based off doing so since the founding of the state. The problem of Crew is simple, the Navy was asked to run a nine ship navy on establishment figures that wasn't enough for 8 for **** conditions because the Irish people don't want to pay the DF the same as any other sector of the Public Service, pay them the same as Gardaí or even just other PS maritime personnel and the retention crisis would be a different animal.


Show me a smaller OPV in any European Atlantic Navy if you think your suggestion works.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

They are the smallest hulls that the Navy has decided can sustainable operate off the West Coast, that's fact based off doing so since the founding of the state. The problem of Crew is simple, the Navy was asked to run a nine ship navy on establishment figures that wasn't enough for 8 for **** conditions because the Irish people don't want to pay the DF the same as any other sector of the Public Service, pay them the same as Gardaí or even just other PS maritime personnel and the retention crisis would be a different animal.


Show me a smaller OPV in any European Atlantic Navy if you think your suggestion works.

The flament class the French use, with modernisation obviously, dual engine, water makers etc, 200 mile offshore limit which I am not sure we have any rights to board fishing vessels outside of anyway.

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

The flament class the French use, with modernisation obviously, dual engine, water makers etc, 200 mile offshore limit which I am not sure we have any rights to board fishing vessels outside of anyway.

Which the French are replacing with larger hulls under their fleet plan "with a new class of significantly larger ocean-going patrol vessels" to quote the Wiki article on them... And by larger they are talking about pretty much the tonnage of the P50's at least from what I've seen. I'd also wonder given their basing what their operational area is.



You think retention is bad now, try asking people to go into 20m waves in a 500 ton ship, hell we retired hulls twice that tonnage as not capable. I'd also bet you that the living quarters of those ships are nothing compared to the 50's/60's which also impact retention.



You seem fixated on "small hulls" as the answer while seemingly ignoring the fact that the Navy has operated said smaller hulls over the decades, they know their limitations and spent a hell of a long time picking the P60 class as the long term OPV hull.

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

We are basically a neutral country, warfare is not our business, if it was the eu would take care of it, fishery protection, a bit of customs, drugs etc, the odd courtesy visit and the odd humanitarian act to make our people feel better is all that is required.

We should just go back to being a colony of the UK so, and let them look after our security. That's what you are saying in effect.
"Warfare is not our business" What a load of nonsense. This country was actively engaged in a military conflict not of it's making for 40 years. A soldier dies, Gardai died. Bombs exploded on the streets of our towns and cities. We didn't seek it out. It found us. Do you think in th eabsence of a defence force it would have skipped us completely?
The EU, as we so proudly voted, is not an army. It expects its members to do it's own security, or let NATO do it.
Customs do their own thing. Not a military function. The NS assist because we insist on an unarmed police force and unarmed customs. The smugglers have no such rule.

Dohvolle

mikeym wrote: »

IMO we dont need a Canterbury type ship.

I hate AI created content with poor voiceovers.

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

The flament class the French use, with modernisation obviously, dual engine, water makers etc, 200 mile offshore limit which I am not sure we have any rights to board fishing vessels outside of anyway.

The Flamant class do not work out to the 200 mile limit, they protect the French Nuclear sub Naval bases. That's why they are based in Cherbourg. Occasionally they dash across the Celtic sea to visit Irish ports but only in summer. They are useful training vessels, and give young french sailors the chance to live on a tiny sardine tin before progressing to a proper ship.
If you expect a sailor to patrol the western edge of the Irish EEZ then you must really hate the navy. Flamant can operate up to sea state 4. You know when you fart in the bath or if a fat person dives into a swimming pool? That's sea state 4. Even then the flamant leaks. The P60 class are designed for working in Winter Mid atlantic. 11M wave height AVERAGE.
Do you also take the tyres off your car to save rubber?

Widdensushi

Dohvolle wrote: »

We should just go back to being a colony of the UK so, and let them look after our security. That's what you are saying in effect.
"Warfare is not our business" What a load of nonsense. This country was actively engaged in a military conflict not of it's making for 40 years. A soldier dies, Gardai died. Bombs exploded on the streets of our towns and cities. We didn't seek it out. It found us. Do you think in th eabsence of a defence force it would have skipped us completely?
The EU, as we so proudly voted, is not an army. It expects its members to do it's own security, or let NATO do it.
Customs do their own thing. Not a military function. The NS assist because we insist on an unarmed police force and unarmed customs. The smugglers have no such rule.

What a load of rubbish, who said anything about unarmed, it doesn't mean armed helicopters etc as in the post I was answering, we are never going to have an armed forces that can face off another country, obviously smugglers will not be a problem without serious firepower.

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

What a load of rubbish, who said anything about unarmed, it doesn't mean armed helicopters etc as in the post I was answering, we are never going to have an armed forces that can face off another country, obviously smugglers will not be a problem without serious firepower.

It's stunning how other nations of similar population/economy somehow not only see things differently but actually plan for that...

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

What a load of rubbish, who said anything about unarmed, it doesn't mean armed helicopters etc as in the post I was answering, we are never going to have an armed forces that can face off another country, obviously smugglers will not be a problem without serious firepower.

Your response indicates to me you have no clue what the purpose of a modern defence force does. I realise now I have been wasting my time engaging with you. I may as well be discussing the advantage of No till over till in soil susceptible to high winds.

This may not be the forum for you.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

It's stunning how other nations of similar population/economy somehow not only see things differently but actually plan for that...

We have French, Spanish, German, eu vessels inspecting fishing and other vessels in "our waters", we don't have any waters, we gave them to the EU.

Widdensushi

Dohvolle wrote: »

Your response indicates to me you have no clue what the purpose of a modern defence force does. I realise now I have been wasting my time engaging with you. I may as well be discussing the advantage of No till over till in soil susceptible to high winds.

This may not be the forum for you.

Is it a discussion forum or a pat ourselves on the back group, maybe a WhatsApp group is more suitable for the conversation you are looking for.

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

We have French, Spanish, German, eu vessels inspecting fishing and other vessels in "our waters", we don't have any waters, we gave them to the EU.

Yes, yes we did, primarily because our farming lobby is vastly larger than our fishing lobby, and our fishing fleet was insignificantly small at the time (as remains the case today in terms of the lobby force). But I fail to see the relevancy of that to the question of nations investing and planning their defence? Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Edit also could you show me foreign vessels inspecting ships in our waters?

Dohvolle

Widdensushi wrote: »

We have French, Spanish, German, eu vessels inspecting fishing and other vessels in "our waters", we don't have any waters, we gave them to the EU.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

Yes, yes we did, primarily because our farming lobby is vastly larger than our fishing lobby, and our fishing fleet was insignificantly small at the time (as remains the case today in terms of the lobby force). But I fail to see the relevancy of that to the question of nations investing and planning their defence? Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Why should our taxpayers invest hundreds of millions, the billions suggested on this forum to bring a knife to a gunfight, who are we ever going to be in a position to fight with a chance of winning, why invest when we have no scenario where it is a good investment for the Irish people?

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

Why should our taxpayers invest hundreds of millions, the billions suggested on this forum to bring a knife to a gunfight, who are we ever going to be in a position to fight with a chance of winning, why invest when we have no scenario where it is a good investment for the Irish people?

Not 25 years ago as terms of our gdp we spent over 1.2% on defence when the economy and population was much poor and smaller and the nation went about it's business just fine.


Today that same level of spending could radically alter the capabilities of the DF, but somehow it's beyond our capability of doing so. Yet other nations of similar population/economy somehow manage, are they all wrong? Like I asked you, have you noticed that even the "neutral" EU nations other than us are increasing their spending?


As to why we might want to spend it, we don't get to decide what any other nations or the increasing amount of "rogue" actors decide, and they don't particularly care that we don't care. I think we are a major IT hub of Europe and our National Cyber defence capabilities effectively don't exist, I think we are a major hub for undersea cables and we have no ability to see what's going on under our waters, I think it's naive to think we can avoid the "lone wolf" type attacks yet out help fleet is sorely lacking to support a response, I think we deploy for UN missions under-equipped and "hope for the best" because the public don't care, and in this case for the Flagship and the next 40 years of service the idea that she has no defence capabilities is insane.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

As to why we might want to spend it, we don't get to decide what any other nations or the increasing amount of "rogue" actors decide, and they don't particularly care that we don't care.

Times changed, what is the possible return on this rather than our healthcare for example for the average Irish person?

sparky42

Widdensushi wrote: »

Times changed, what is the possible return on this rather than our healthcare for example for the average Irish person?

The Healthcare budget consumes the Capital budget of the DF in less than a week, the entire budget (pay and pensions included in less than a month), if the average Irish person thinks somehow that's going to make the difference to the Health Service, then they need to educate themselves a bit more.

Widdensushi

sparky42 wrote: »

The Healthcare budget consumes the Capital budget of the DF in less than a week, the entire budget (pay and pensions included in less than a month), if the average Irish person thinks somehow that's going to make the difference to the Health Service, then they need to educate themselves a bit more.

What is the possible return on the investment?