Anti Piracy mission

sparky42

I think this needs it's own thread:

The Government is expected to decide within the next month whether to send Defence Forces personnel to the Indian Ocean to assist in tackling piracy.Minister for Defence Simon Coveney said the department and military authorities were seriously considering potential options for personnel to protect ships delivering food aid to Somalia and other vessels from piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.
He told Sinn Féin’s Seán Crowe that, while consideration was at a very early stage, “I will probably be able to say whether this is a real likelihood” by the time of the next Dáil defence questions, due on February 19th”.
Three possibilities are under consideration – sending a well-trained unit of 20 to serve on World Food Programme vessels, sending Air Corps personnel and an aircraft to improve surveillance capacity or deploying “a fully crewed ship for a period of three or four months to participate in the work the fleet is doing there”.

Ballpark figure

Mr Crowe had asked if the Government was requested to send personnel and if the Minister had a “ballpark figure for the cost”. He also wanted to know if the plan was “specifically a military response to a difficult situation there”. Mr Coveney said he would have a full cost estimate within the next fortnight.He said the EU’s Operation Atalanta, which the Defence Forces would join if they went, “is specifically about counteracting and preventing piracy and providing a significant deterrent” for a serious threat to vessels carrying food aid.

I'd hope that it would be the Navy that got this task, or looking at the hardware deployed on the mission, one of the MPA's but I don't think that the Air Corps could cover everything with only 1 MPA at home. So I'd bet on some of the ARW being deployed if anything is chosen.

Any other opinions?

Tabnabs

I've heard a ships name being mentioned for a few weeks now, wondered if there was any truth in it.

Break out the Red Sea Rig!

sparky42

Tabnabs wrote: »

I've heard a ships name being mentioned for a few weeks now, wondered if there was any truth in it.

Break out the Red Sea Rig!

Interesting, I think it would be great for the Navy if they got the tasking (wonder which ship), it would be great for operational experience on such a mission and might feed into future procurement decisions if it were to go well. Looking at the Dail replies, Coveney does seem eager for something to be deployed

mikeym

It would be great for the Navy to do an overseas mission but I cant see it happening due to funds

sparky42

mikeym wrote: »

It would be great for the Navy to do an overseas mission but I cant see it happening due to funds

True that's the unfortunate reality, but maybe some funds could get moved around (Oversea aid, since we'll be protecting Food ships?;)). I wonder what level of funding we are talking about?

Victor

Do we have enough ships?

BoJack Horseman

Is this government more keen to engage in operations than just previous ones?
(Something I would welcome).

What vessel would be up for the task?

Am I right in saying that our vessels might be a bit slow to be effective? And/or lacking in helicopter?

sparky42

Victor wrote: »

Do we have enough ships?

Well the 2 Peacocks are back in operation or soon to return I think, don't know what the status of the Eithne is, if it's mid February that it's going to be announced, Joyce should be here working up by the time any ship deploys so, all in all I'd say we'd at worst have the same number available that we've had since the Asbestos issue came into play.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is this government more keen to engage in operations than just previous ones?
(Something I would welcome).

What vessel would be up for the task?

Am I right in saying that our vessels might be a bit slow to be effective? And/or lacking in helicopter?

Judging from the tone of Coveney's comments, he's well keen on deploying something to the mission, what that ends up being is another question of course.

I'd say any of the modern ships (P50/P60), they've done cruises to South America for example, the 50's/60's have a top speed of 23 knots, I'm sure that's enough for escorting food ships. Yeah there's the issue of no helicopters but that's not something we can change anytime soon (hell maybe if this does go to the Navy then that might add interest in revisiting that for future planning.

If you look at the current ships on mission, the Croatian's have deployed a missile boat, endurance of a week, and no helicopter either.

Tabnabs

Here's a list of what has been sent and what's there currently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Atalanta#Vessels

Manach

I would be somewhat skeptic of it. Currently I'm reading "Dead Sea" by Rose George. The book is on the ocean going freight operations and mentions piracy. This is an issue that needs long term and co-ordinated commitment to protect the merchant marine in various trouble spots around the world. However my (albeit uninformed ), understanding is that the Irish Naval mission is closer to shore operations and not blue ocean. The latter has a differing logistical focus and hence cost base. These could be better met by traditional seafaring nations closer to that area of the world, instead of travelling their on a minister's notion.

ectoraige

mikeym wrote: »

It would be great for the Navy to do an overseas mission but I cant see it happening due to funds

Aren't all their missions "over" seas? :pac: (sorry, couldn't resist)

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is this government more keen to engage in operations than just previous ones?
(Something I would welcome).

I think any increase in keeness can be attributed to Simon Coveney personally, rather than the government. Given that for the first few years of the government there wasn't even a Minister for Defence, just Enda Kenny acting as one, it's hard to praise them collectively.

Am I right in saying that our vessels might be a bit slow to be effective? And/or lacking in helicopter?

A failure to meet requests due to lack of equipment is always good justification to apply for more equipment. There might be requirements for shore operations that can be met with existing resources.

sparky42

ectoraige wrote: »

I think any increase in keeness can be attributed to Simon Coveney personally, rather than the government. Given that for the first few years of the government there wasn't even a Minister for Defence, just Enda Kenny acting as one, it's hard to praise them collectively.

No, for the most part shatter was both minister for justice and for defence. It was only when he went as a minister that Kenny stepped in as the minister.

petergfiffin

Over the last decade or so the Naval Service - at least to me - has always given the impression of looking for more kit to take on bigger and more challenging roles and I think, much like Niamh's deployment off Liberia as a recce base for the Rangers, they've consistently held up their end; I think this mission is a fantastic opportunity for them to build on that and get a lot of good publicity to boot.

There's legitimate concerns about not having a helicopter but I would just see that as a challenge to be overcome rather than a reason not to go, maybe this will help accelerate their UAV procurement programme? Other ships have and are deployed there without helicopters and I'm sure given the choice between having a ship without a helicopter and having no ship at all I think we all know which is preferable. Something which may have helped here is if the Air Corps had been willing to deploy a CASA as the Spanish have done (clearly I'm not privy to any discussions and maybe they were jumping up and down begging to go), even a short deployment could have been a huge PR bonus for them and the justification to push for a 3rd, 4th or 5th CASA size aircraft over time.

BoJack Horseman

petergfiffin wrote: »

maybe this will help accelerate their UAV procurement programme?

Have any of the vessels the means to retrieve/catch a UAV?

Am I right in thinking its a net system on the flight deck they use?

petergfiffin

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Have any of the vessels the means to retrieve/catch a UAV?

Am I right in thinking its a net system on the flight deck they use?

Haven't a clue, just remembered from a couple of articles that the capability was mentioned but what they'll use or what form it'll take I have no idea.

http://afloat.ie/port-news/navy/item/26806-naval-service-showcase-le-samuel-beckett-at-opv-conference

sparky42

petergfiffin wrote: »

Over the last decade or so the Naval Service - at least to me - has always given the impression of looking for more kit to take on bigger and more challenging roles and I think, much like Niamh's deployment off Liberia as a recce base for the Rangers, they've consistently held up their end; I think this mission is a fantastic opportunity for them to build on that and get a lot of good publicity to boot.

There's legitimate concerns about not having a helicopter but I would just see that as a challenge to be overcome rather than a reason not to go, maybe this will help accelerate their UAV procurement programme? Other ships have and are deployed there without helicopters and I'm sure given the choice between having a ship without a helicopter and having no ship at all I think we all know which is preferable. Something which may have helped here is if the Air Corps had been willing to deploy a CASA as the Spanish have done (clearly I'm not privy to any discussions and maybe they were jumping up and down begging to go), even a short deployment could have been a huge PR bonus for them and the justification to push for a 3rd, 4th or 5th CASA size aircraft over time.

I'd prefer if we had the resources to deploy a combined package of all three assets (ARW, Navy and Air Corps) however I think a major issue for the CASA is that we'd only have 1 left at home then. Considering we are already down the Gulfstream, that I think would only leave the Learjet and the 1 CASA for everything from SAR/MPA to medical flight etc. Not a lot of spare capacity in that regard (and yes the "Government Jets" have done top cover for Coastguard missions before when needed).

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Have any of the vessels the means to retrieve/catch a UAV?

Am I right in thinking its a net system on the flight deck they use?

I don't think necessary so. The ScanEagle system can be caught with a crane type system. But yes the Beckett's were designed for the capability. (somehow I doubt we could convince the RN to surplus their ScanEagle's and operators though).

Silvera

I agree that this is a great development for the Defence Forces in general, and the NS and AC in particular. I'd say the most likely deployment will be in the following order -

1. Army Ranger Wing
2. NS vessel
3. Air Corps MPA

Would the lack of an anti-missile system be a problem for a NS vessel deployed on anti-piracy mission? Seeing as Somalia pirates have been known to use shoulder launched missiles during attacks..

sparky42

Silvera wrote: »

I agree that this is a great development for the Defence Forces in general, and the NS and AC in particular. I'd say the most likely deployment will be in the following order -

1. Army Ranger Wing
2. NS vessel
3. Air Corps MPA

Would the lack of an anti-missile system be a problem for a NS vessel deployed on anti-piracy mission? Seeing as Somalia pirates have been known to use shoulder launched missiles during attacks..

I'd say you are right about the order of likelyhood, though I would love the NS to get the tasking, it would be a big change for them and allow them to develop their skills. It's a pity we haven't been involved up until now, Niamh or Roisin could have done it since it started in '08...

I doubt the lack of CWIS is an issue, I don't think any of the EU ships have had to use CWIS for that level of defence, have any of the ships actaully suffered damage? I know they have been attacked (how stupid are the pirates to attack a warship? I doubt that they would allow skiffs into that range anyway, not when they can intercept with the RIBs.

Victor

Silvera wrote: »

Would the lack of an anti-missile system be a problem for a NS vessel deployed on anti-piracy mission? Seeing as Somalia pirates have been known to use shoulder launched missiles during attacks..

What missiles were these and at what range? What systems are available to counter these threats?

petergfiffin wrote: »

Other ships have and are deployed there without helicopters and I'm sure given the choice between having a ship without a helicopter and having no ship at all I think we all know which is preferable. Something which may have helped here is if the Air Corps had been willing to deploy a CASA as the Spanish have done (clearly I'm not privy to any discussions and maybe they were jumping up and down begging to go), even a short deployment could have been a huge PR bonus for them and the justification to push for a 3rd, 4th or 5th CASA size aircraft over time.

How are you going to maintain one aircraft that far away from home with a limited skills / personnel base? What about domestic obligations?

Note that ships in the Somali bight don't use satellite transponders for fear of bringing the pirates on themselves. This would limit the capabilities of the Casas. In contrast, an on-board helicopter would mean localised inspections and interventions would be much helped.

sparky42

Victor wrote: »

What missiles were these and at what range? What systems are available to counter these threats?

I don't think that it's been anything more advanced than the common RPG variants, certainly not actual anti ship weapons. As for countermeasures, I'd say it's just keep them at range, looking through wiki as a quick search there's relatively few deliberate attacks on Warships, and most end as soon as fire is returned. Don't think any of the patrol ships have been hit by RPG systems.

How are you going to maintain one aircraft that far away from home with a limited skills / personnel base? What about domestic obligations?

Note that ships in the Somali bight don't use satellite transponders for fear of bringing the pirates on themselves. This would limit the capabilities of the Casas. In contrast, an on-board helicopter would mean localised inspections and interventions would be much helped.

The Spanish have a 235 deployed there at the moment supporting a German P3, so if we did want to send it, maybe we could do a deal with the Spanish in terms of joint support? But yes the domestic hole that it would leave means that's the most unlikely asset to be sent on the mission.

Victor

sparky42 wrote: »

I don't think that it's been anything more advanced than the common RPG variants

In which case, I can't see any anti-missile system being useful.

The Spanish have a 235 deployed there at the moment

Not necessarily the same sub-model, e.g. might have different engines, so spares and mechanics might not be of much use.

sparky42

Victor wrote: »

In which case, I can't see any anti-missile system being useful.

Like I said I think it's more "keep them at distance" or "shoot them till they sink/surrender" if they try anything, but it's a rare enough situation and several have been because the naval ships baited them into attacking what they thought was a civilian ship

Not necessarily the same sub-model, e.g. might have different engines, so spares and mechanics might not be of much use.

True, the Spanish seem to have 3 different versions on the go, I'd say the most likely is their 100 Vigma planes, but I can't find anything about them, but they share the 100 series so should have the same engines. But of all that might be deployed I think the Air Corps is the least likely even if there was the capability to share support costs.

Silvera

How long would such a deployment of ARW/NS vessel/CASA last? ....Two Weeks? One month?

sparky42

Silvera wrote: »

How long would such a deployment of ARW/NS vessel/CASA last? ....Two Weeks? One month?

What makes you think it would be a one off event? The EU mission has been active for years, we might see a continuous deployment, at the very least I'd expect the deployment to be over 3/4 months. It would certainly more than what you are suggesting (there's no point in doing it for just that short a period).

cruasder777

Silvera wrote: »

I agree that this is a great development for the Defence Forces in general, and the NS and AC in particular. I'd say the most likely deployment will be in the following order -

1. Army Ranger Wing
2. NS vessel
3. Air Corps MPA

Would the lack of an anti-missile system be a problem for a NS vessel deployed on anti-piracy mission? Seeing as Somalia pirates have been known to use shoulder launched missiles during attacks..

The Naval service really needs a platoon of Marines for such deployments.

If the Wing do out there, it will severely weaken anti terrorist capability back home. At this present moment of heightened alert this is not an option.

Victor

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Naval service really needs a platoon of Marines for such deployments.

Are we going to do amphibious assault soon?

If the Wing do out there, it will severely weaken anti terrorist capability back home. At this present moment of heightened alert this is not an option.

Train more people for the ARW and/or take back some of the ARW-trained people who are assigned to other units.

There are ARW members who joined from the Naval Service.

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

The Naval service really needs a platoon of Marines for such deployments.

If the Wing do out there, it will severely weaken anti terrorist capability back home. At this present moment of heightened alert this is not an option.

Maybe that might swing it towards the Navy? Is the Wing's "official" numbers 100, or 150 I can't remember, wasn't it announced in the '00's that it was being increased?

cruasder777

sparky42 wrote: »

Maybe that might swing it towards the Navy? Is the Wing's "official" numbers 100, or 150 I can't remember, wasn't it announced in the '00's that it was being increased?

Its around a company size...120

If there were Paris type incidents, even with the ERU, they would be stretched to the max.

Why does an army Special Forces unit need to do anti piracy ?

Its a marine deployment.

cruasder777

Victor wrote: »

Are we going to do amphibious assault soon?

Train more people for the ARW and/or take back some of the ARW-trained people who are assigned to other units.

There are ARW members who joined from the Naval Service.

Marines do a lot more then amphibious assaults.

The Wing have trained with these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71rIF5BJ-Ks

I think the Wing should stick to land/air based Special Forces and anti terrorism missions. The Naval service create a platoon of Marines for these kind of Naval missions and maritime anti terrorism.

The army a Pathfinder platoon for reconnaissance and long range patrolling. It would mean the Wing could concentrate more on anti terrorism, at present their role is way too broad and I don't see how a company can cover these roles and many others.

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its around a company size...120

If there were Paris type incidents, even with the ERU, they would be stretched to the max.

Why does an army Special Forces unit need to do anti piracy ?

Its a marine deployment.

I agree with you about how hard pressed the ERU/ARU/Wing would be in such an event certainly. To be honest I'm not sure why you couldn't just deploy some of the Army to do the task, seems all they really need to do is put rounds on the pirates to at least discourage them from attacking the ship.

sparky42

Victor wrote: »

Are we going to do amphibious assault soon?

Train more people for the ARW and/or take back some of the ARW-trained people who are assigned to other units.

There are ARW members who joined from the Naval Service.

Given the size of the defence forces, there's not much chance of increasing the ARW much more, not without reducing their standards I'd bet. And I think taking back others would come down to why they are no longer in the ARW, their might be a good reason for that.

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

Marines do a lot more then amphibious assaults.

The Wing have trained with these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71rIF5BJ-Ks

I think the Wing should stick to land/air based Special Forces and anti terrorism missions. The Naval service create a platoon of Marines for these kind of Naval missions and maritime anti terrorism.

The army a Pathfinder platoon for reconnaissance and long range patrolling. It would mean the Wing could concentrate more on anti terrorism, at present their role is way too broad and I don't see how a company can cover these roles and many others.

If the EPV ever came to be I could see a chance of some of the Army being trained in more maritime capability, but I don't think the Army would be happy with the Navy developing their own force. Not too sure they should either, let the Navy concentrate on the ships and train the some army units for maritime boarding/security needs.

petergfiffin

sparky42 wrote: »

let the Navy concentrate on the ships and train the some army units for maritime boarding/security needs.

I don't know why you'd need to train the Army to do what the NS do every day i.e. board vessels, including armed boardings. If it were a case of building the capability to take back a hijaked ship then surely it wouldn't take very long to up-skill the existing (already highly trained) boarding parties which is good all round for the NS. I imagine when the RN are deployed on these type of operations they do so without the SBS or SAS deployed and instead rely on highly trained boarding parties, the fact these are drawn from marines is more of a historical throwback.

Markcheese

Would the peacocks suit the role- they're the smallest and fastest Irish ships -and were designed for work in hot- climates -
They' re getting on a bit though and might be a wee bit small ,especially getting them to the east coast of Africa and back -

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

Would the peacocks suit the role- they're the smallest and fastest Irish ships -and were designed for work in hot- climates -
They' re getting on a bit though and might be a wee bit small ,especially getting them to the east coast of Africa and back -

They only have marginally more speed than the Roisin/Beckett class (25 to 23 knots), and aren't designed for long duration deployments, I'd say they would also have less range than the larger ships by a margin. If we are going to do it, the 50/60's would be the best option I still think.

Silvera

IMO, it would make more sense to increase the number of NS personnel available for maritime work. Otherwise, will it again be the same case as when the AC stopped heli ops? ....i.e. pilots in the AC didnt join up to spend extended periods at sea ..like wise re ARW personnel.

Let the NS do all maritime work, be it boarding, heli ops, etc
At the end of the day they are trained/have the 'sea legs' to do so better than any land-based/trained personnel.

sparky42

From the Examiner article on the gift to Malta, it's suggested that it will be a navy ship being sent to Africa:http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/navy-gifts-ship-to-malta-313305.html

Meanwhile, the Naval Service looks poised to send ships to the Horn of Africa as part of an EU anti-piracy mission.

The Department of Defence confirmed that initial work on a contribution by Ireland to the EU maritime mission, Operation Atalanta, is being undertaken.

It is likely that the Naval Service would send one of its newer ships out to the north-east coast of Africa, where Somali pirates in particular have reeked havoc with commercial shipping.

The EU launched Operation Atalanta in December 2008 in response to the rising levels of piracy in the Western Indian Ocean.

Incidents of piracy have fallen recently from a peak in 2011 when Somali pirates launched attacks on an almost daily basis, sometimes holding cargo and crew hostage for huge ransoms.

A number of the ships were heading for Europe with important cargoes.

The EU decided to act to protect economic interests and vessels operating the World Food Programme in Somalia.

It is expected that Irish vessels sent to the Horn of Africa would typically work two-week patrols with three days off over a three-to-four-month period.

The Naval Service will shortly be back up to full strength after losing two of its eight vessels for a number of months due to asbestos contamination.

The new €50m LÉ James Joyce is due to be delivered to the Navy around St Patrick’s weekend.

Markcheese

I suppose one of the Becketts could in theory stay off the coast of Africa for quite a while , (just rotating the crews ) they're brand new so maintenance should be minimal.
Would they need adapting /kitting out for hot climate work ? More airconditioning or something -
Any idea where they'd use as a home port when down there ? Or just turn up a t the nearest friendly port and fly the flag a bit . ?

Larbre34

The mission has its own oilers, replenishment vessels and landing platform docks, mostly from France, Germany and the Netherlands. When berthing is needed they would use coalition states in the Gulf.

The Beckett is really the only ship for the mission, NATO standard gear, maximum capacity for boarding ops and interdiction, a years drill behind the crew.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

The mission has its own oilers, replenishment vessels and landing platform docks, mostly from France, Germany and the Netherlands. When berthing is needed they would use coalition states in the Gulf.

The Beckett is really the only ship for the mission, NATO standard gear, maximum capacity for boarding ops and interdiction, a years drill behind the crew.

If they wanted to they could also carry extra stores/whatever on the space for the containers as well. I suppose it would be too much to see if we could convince the Brits to loan us a Scaneagle and crew;):D:P

Victor

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose one of the Becketts could in theory stay off the coast of Africa for quite a while , (just rotating the crews ) they're brand new so maintenance should be minimal.

Brand new ships are the last ones you send on long trips, because if something new breaks, you are kinda stuck.

With ships that you've had a few years, at least you know what the niggly bits are.

sparky42

Victor wrote: »

Brand new ships are the last ones you send on long trips, because if something new breaks, you are kinda stuck.

With ships that you've had a few years, at least you know what the niggly bits are.

She's had a year of operations without any significant issues. It's either her or Roisin/Niamh.

voter1983

What about Eithne?

sparky42

voter1983 wrote: »

What about Eithne?

I would think the Navy would prefer not to send a 30 year old ship on such a deployment. If it's going to be a continuous deployment (ie some other ship replacing the proposed deployed ship) then it might make sense to use ships that have common spares (ie Roisin and Niamh swapping off, or Beckett with Joyce following).

Given the comments that have come from the Navy in regards to the fuel efficiency of the Beckett's propulsion, they might be the best for this kind of deployment.

petergfiffin

sparky42 wrote: »

If it's going to be a continuous deployment (ie some other ship replacing the proposed deployed ship) then it might make sense to use ships that have common spares (ie Roisin and Niamh swapping off, or Beckett with Joyce following).

Would it not be a lot cheaper to make more sense to just base a ship in an African country e.g. Kenya or DJibouti and just fly the crews in?

Tabnabs

voter1983 wrote: »

What about Eithne?

It's the name I've heard more than once...

Markcheese

Tabnabs wrote: »

It's the name I've heard more than once...

It's 30 years old , we don't have a helicopter to suit ,( which would have seriously upped her suitability ) , she's the only one of her class so lowering number of crews available if it's a long mission - and she'd burn some amount of diesel -

Cork boy 55

Missed the boat
Somalia piracy collapsed(-90%) in 2013 for a variety reasons
only nine vessels attacked in 2013 and ZERO successful
Main reasons being the adoption of best tactics by vessels , armed private security onboard ships and improvements in Somalia

http://www.thejournal.ie/piracy-somalia-down-on-last-year-1219326-Dec2013/

theres no DATA for 2014 I can find?
Of course it could be argued that if the international mission was wound down there would be another rise in it, I don't know enough.

Would not supporting Italy/Malta/Greece/Spain in Med with current invasion
be more appropriate to the NS kit. If NS is going out of EEZ.
Seems more urgent,important,benefaction and appropriate.

a/tel

Markcheese wrote: »

It's 30 years old , we don't have a helicopter to suit ,( which would have seriously upped her suitability ) , she's the only one of her class so lowering number of crews available if it's a long mission - and she'd burn some amount of diesel -

Eithne is good on fuel compared with the rest of the ships in the fleet. Smaller engines burn less fuel!. As for the heli, the equipment has been removed and the deck back to normal painted metal deck. None of the rest of the ships have that capability either.

If i was a betting man id still say Beckett though. Power Take In system = considerable fuel cost savings