Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Expand Irish Navy

Options
  • 23-08-2018 6:06pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 21


    Should we expand the Irish Navy? No for controlling the world like the US, Russia, China, etc.
    But to police our water. With a Marine territory 10 times the size of our land mass it would be extremely hard for 8 ships to patrol it (7 atm because one is in the Mediterranean) and all 8 not even being destroyers, all but 2 being Off Shore Patrol Vessels, LÉ Orla and LÉ Ciara being Corvettes that are both 30 years old.

    So should we expand our navy, with new destroyers, maybe an amphibious assault ship?

    With this we could also but up a more influential role on the worlds stage primarily in UN Peace Keeping, relief missions in natural disaster zones. As well as create more jobs

    My friend said something that got me thinking, maybe exploration ships? We know more about our solar system than the bottom of our own ocean, so lets get a few ships and convert them, (or build new) into mapping ships and map the bottom of the ocean and look for lost ships eg. The four Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway are still lost.

    So what you think, bar in mind, this is just the navy, bare in mind our air force is horribly unequipped and army woefully unequipped.

    Navy Expanntion 41 votes

    No, (leave them as they are)
    0%
    No, (focus on army/air force)
    4%
    mikeymFolkstonian 2 votes
    No (just leave the military as it is)
    4%
    JPCN1Signore Fancy Pants 2 votes
    Yes, (but only for policing our waters)
    2%
    davo2001 1 vote
    Yes, (but only for UN/relief missions)
    26%
    TriangleYggr of AsgardTabnabsartanevillaSpannerMonkeyP.lane78Faith+1yogmeistergozundalenny palmerShpud2 11 votes
    Yes (for policing our waters and UN/relief missions)
    0%
    Yes, (When we have the money)
    53%
    PanhardPLsourceSierra Oscarmurphym7spark23moomancameramonkeylogie101Wookster76Yawlboypurplepandaalphasullyrandy hickeyLeonidas BLLarbre34[Deleted User]sparky42dwasolmikemac2Glen Immal 22 votes
    Do more (expand more than what poster mentioned)
    0%
    Other, (written in comments)
    7%
    Heraldoffreeentzone 1thomil 3 votes


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭randy hickey


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Voted for option 6, as it should be a no brainer for any Irish citizen with even a basic comprehension of the scale of our territorial waters etc.etc.

    But,I would also like to see the defence of the skies over our heads being treated seriously and funded appropriately.

    It is incomprehensible to me, how in 2018, seventeen years on from the horror of 9/11, we are basically dependent on the RAF to intercept any hijacked airliner in our airspace.

    I often feel we are very immature as a people - the unthinkable always has to happen before we will take any action.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    I'm on the same page as you randy. One more ship of a decent size and a couple of 1000 ton heavily armed replacements to Ciara and Orla. Then its the Air Corps turn and an initial upgrade of 8 Aermacchi Alenia trainer / light attack aircraft to get the lads up to speed, followed by 8 of them Saab Viggens a couple of years later. About time the DF got a shot in the arm....and an auld pay rise is in order as well or there will be no staff left to use the new hardware we are proposing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Daithi_115 wrote:
    So should we expand our navy, with new destroyers, maybe an amphibious assault ship?


    In a word "No". Destroyers and assualt ships are not a part of fishery protection or drug detection.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    I'm on the same page as you randy. One more ship of a decent size and a couple of 1000 ton heavily armed replacements to Ciara and Orla. Then its the Air Corps turn and an initial upgrade of 8 Aermacchi Alenia trainer / light attack aircraft to get the lads up to speed, followed by 8 of them Saab Viggens a couple of years later. About time the DF got a shot in the arm....and an auld pay rise is in order as well or there will be no staff left to use the new hardware we are proposing.

    Viggens? They’ve been out of service for a long term, I presume you mean Gripens?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    In a word "No". Destroyers and assualt ships are not a part of fishery protection or drug detection.

    I think the point is we are doing more than that, destroyers most likely not (only the U.K. in Europe classes them, but a baby amphib would have a lot of uses.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Thats it Sparky..Gripens. showin me age! You agree with me about the Italian aircraft as a good upgrade path for the air corps?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,822 ✭✭✭Alkers


    The Navy are having enough difficulty in manning the current fleet without this expansion you're talking about. A serious overhaul of pay and conditions in order to retain existing member and attract new high-quality member is required urgently.

    Once that is addressed, I believe the Navy should then be expanded but I don't agree with fast jets for the Air Corps, the budget simply isn't there. I would consider disbanding the Air Corps as a stand-alone service and attaching the necessary rotary and fixed-wing elements to each the Army and the Naval Service to best suit their individual needs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    There will be plenty of money available in a couple of years. Oil is coming ashore in Cork quite soon. Appraisal drilling next year on recent oil and gas discovery. Ireland will be like Saudi Arabia within a five year timescale. Check out Providence Resources and Lansdowne Oil and Gas who have partnered with Chinese semi state body to make this happen. New defence resources needed to defend these strategic assets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    There will be plenty of money available in a couple of years. Oil is coming ashore in Cork quite soon. Appraisal drilling next year on recent oil and gas discovery. Ireland will be like Saudi Arabia within a five year timescale. Check out Providence Resources and Lansdowne Oil and Gas who have partnered with Chinese semi state body to make this happen. New defence resources needed to defend these strategic assets.

    Not really no, last time I heard the cork oil was too heavy for the refinery’s set up, and I thought the Dail voted to limit drilling recently? Meanwhile the gas import terminals are moving ahead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Simona1986 wrote: »
    The Navy are having enough difficulty in manning the current fleet without this expansion you're talking about. A serious overhaul of pay and conditions in order to retain existing member and attract new high-quality member is required urgently.

    Once that is addressed, I believe the Navy should then be expanded but I don't agree with fast jets for the Air Corps, the budget simply isn't there. I would consider disbanding the Air Corps as a stand-alone service and attaching the necessary rotary and fixed-wing elements to each the Army and the Naval Service to best suit their individual needs.

    The retention issue is the widespread issue but given we are hitting max employment.

    As for the AC I disagree with breaking it up. Both the Navy Army and CG need both fixed and helicopter support. Splitting the AC just adds to the costs. Like the navy and army just fund it right.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭keffiyeh



    It is incomprehensible to me, how in 2018, seventeen years on from the horror of 9/11, we are basically dependent on the RAF to intercept any hijacked airliner in our airspace.

    It is incomprehensible to me to think that someone in 2018 could even imagine that Ireland would be at risk of an incident involving a hijacked airliner, or a target for anybody.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,880 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    There will be plenty of money available in a couple of years. Oil is coming ashore in Cork quite soon. Appraisal drilling next year on recent oil and gas discovery. Ireland will be like Saudi Arabia within a five year timescale. Check out Providence Resources and Lansdowne Oil and Gas who have partnered with Chinese semi state body to make this happen. New defence resources needed to defend these strategic assets.

    You really don't live on the same planet as the rest of us, do you?

    Quite apart from the massive lottery that is oil and gas exploration in the Celtic Sea, our Government(s) have sold off the rights to harness any of those resources to private interests, as you in fact mention. That means we might get some duty off them, nothing else.

    Saudi Aramco, the wholly owned state (royal) company of that Kingdom has revenues of 50 billion euro a year and hundreds of billions of barrels of reserves. That is a tiny bit different to the potential of the resource in Ireland.

    When it comes to debates like this, Irelands defence budget will only increase in the context of a voted expansion to accommodate PESCO or some sort of EU /NATO partnership cohesion deal to improve Ireland's air defence, perhaps in the context of Brexit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,822 ✭✭✭Alkers


    sparky42 wrote:
    As for the AC I disagree with breaking it up. Both the Navy Army and CG need both fixed and helicopter support. Splitting the AC just adds to the costs. Like the navy and army just find it right.


    That didn't work out very well for the helicopters operation off of Eithne on years gone by!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Simona1986 wrote: »
    That didn't work out very well for the helicopters operation off of Eithne on years gone by!

    There was plenty wrong with that project, from the lack of the two sisters ships to the selection of the helicopters (was meant to be Lynxes) to the political interference.

    Eithnes replacement is meant to be helicopter capable so we’ll see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭thomil


    Other, (written in comments)
    While I appreciate the OPs enthusiasm for expanding the Irish Navy, just simply increasing the size of the fleet won't do the trick, and Ireland certainly doesn't need a full fledged amphibious assault ship. We need to instead look at what capabilities are likely to be required in the future, and plan accordingly, and before we can even THINK about an expanded fleet, the payment and manpower issues need to be sorted.

    As far as the fleet itself is concerned, I personally believe that the Róisín and Beckett class OPVs actually form an effective "backbone" for any future fleet. Ireland doesn't need to go toe to toe with a carrier battle group or land a massive invasion force, so a heavy weapons fit on the ships is really not necessary. That being said, I do believe that the weapons and sensor suite of these two classes needs to be optimised. Namely, the crew-manned 20mm Rheinmetall cannons should be replaced with remote controlled gun stations controlled from within the ship, in order to avoid exposing crew members in the unlikely event of an attack.
    On the same note, given that it currently looks as if the Mediterranean deployments will continue for quite some time, a rudimentary guided missile and point defence capability in the shape of the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile should be installed on all Róisín and Beckett class vessels. Sensor-wise, I see two major improvement points: One is the integration of a UAV, including launch, recovery, and control facilities into the ship. As Ireland currently doesn't have any shipborne helicopter capability, and no real prospect of getting one, systems like the Boeing ScanEagle are the best option to provide an air search and monitoring capability. In addition, this system can be deployed on vessels much smaller than the Beckett class, meaning that integration, launch, and recovery shouldn't be an issue. The second system should in my eyes be an air search radar, ideally with the ability to "hand off" targets to be taken out by the ship's Oto Melara gun, Remote Weapons Stations, or RIM-116 missiles, should the need arise. Additionally, this system should also make UAV operations, or coordination with Air Corps assets easier.

    Continuing on to the point of actual fleet expansion, the most sensical step in my eyes is simply to add more patrol vessels, as simplistic as it may sound. Ideally, these ships would be in the same size bracket as the two ship classes I mentioned above, with a similar capability, weapons and sensor suite as the "refit" Beckett class I mentioned above. There are designs available in that size range that sport a flight deck, such as the Danish Knud Rasmussen class vessels, and a small fleet of this type of vessel, ideally between four and six to form a second squadron, would provide the most effective way to increase the Irish Navy's operational effectiveness, while still being somewhat likely to survive parliamentary scrutiny here in Ireland.

    As far as larger vessels are concerned, I don't think we can get any more than one, maybe two large units, if we're very lucky. Given this likely restraint, "wasting" it on a light frigate design or something similar is counterproductive in my eyes. Instead, the top priority here should be a medium size replenishment ship or fleet tanker, in order to extend the amount of time the patrol forces can remain at sea, and increase their effectiveness. While the idea of a "Joint Support Ship" that can both supply a task force and provide sea-lift and amphibious capabilities is certainly intriguing, and shipbuilders like Damen have quite a few interesting designs in their portfolios, I'm not sure whether that's the best way forward, and would prefer a pure resupply vessel. If funds for an additional vessel beyond a supply ship become available, a frigate/logistics ship hybrid design should be considered, but it shouldn't be the top priority.

    And that's basically all we can hope for. An increased patrol force with maybe one or two larger support units. And realistically speaking, I don't think Ireland needs much more than that.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Well thought out post Thomil. Totally in favour of upgrade as suggested re missiles. The Israelis have a class of missile attack boats of approx 750 tonne which might come in handy as a second squadron. Less heavily armed version would suffice for FP. Think a helicopter ship is essential...or two.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭randy hickey


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    keffiyeh wrote: »
    It is incomprehensible to me to think that someone in 2018 could even imagine that Ireland would be at risk of an incident involving a hijacked airliner, or a target for anybody.

    Really?
    Sure 'twill be grand - that'd never happen to us. We didn't think we needed seatbelts in buses for decades, because, sure there was no need for them- what could go wrong? It took an albeit rare but horrific incident in Kentstown to happen, and suddenly we have seatbelts in buses.

    But don't worry, we could never have anything bad happen in our airspace, sure we're Irish, what infidel-hating vermin would ever want to bother with us?

    We're special alright......


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,822 ✭✭✭Alkers


    There's not too many juicy targets for a hijacked airliner in ireland


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    You've got some points Thomil, however I'd have some massive doubts about the idea of fitting a RAM system to the Becketts, first there's the issue of deckspace that can hold the weight of the fitting, then there's the question of firing arcs that could cover the most angles, then space behind the mounting so that the exhaust doesn't cook anyone or anything important and finally can where ever it's fitted can survive a potential misfire and mount explosion (recent example of the German Navy having a Standard misfire right in front of the bridge.

    The replacement of the secondaries with RWS makes sense (though does the bridge have the space for the control stations?) but I'd go with "Softkill" ECM systems rather than trying to fit RAM to them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Well thought out post Thomil. Totally in favour of upgrade as suggested re missiles. The Israelis have a class of missile attack boats of approx 750 tonne which might come in handy as a second squadron. Less heavily armed version would suffice for FP. Think a helicopter ship is essential...or two.


    I really don't see why we'd go for such ships, the Beckett's are their size/length due to the need for larger ships for patrol, something as small as 750 tons would be hell for the crews.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭thomil


    Other, (written in comments)
    sparky42 wrote: »
    You've got some points Thomil, however I'd have some massive doubts about the idea of fitting a RAM system to the Becketts, first there's the issue of deckspace that can hold the weight of the fitting, then there's the question of firing arcs that could cover the most angles, then space behind the mounting so that the exhaust doesn't cook anyone or anything important and finally can where ever it's fitted can survive a potential misfire and mount explosion (recent example of the German Navy having a Standard misfire right in front of the bridge.

    I get what you're saying, however the German Navy had RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile, the name of the RIM-116 system) launchers installed on their Gepard class fast attack craft, which are even smaller than the Irish Navy's Peacock class patrol boats. In addition, a RAM launcher is mounted pretty much straight in front of the bridge of Germany's Braunschweig class corvettes or the new F-125 frigates (I won't force anyone on this forum to read the actual class name :pac: ). With that in mind I don't see why, structure permitting, such a launcher couldn't be positioned on the sloping deck structure in front of the bridge, or alternatively right aft of the funnel, overlooking the quarterdeck, after relocating the satcom domes, obviously.

    The reason why I'd favour RAM over an ECM system is that with the right software, it can be used as an anti-surface missile against small ships and boats as well as providing a defence against fast moving aircraft and missiles, thereby turning the Becketts into much more versatile vessels.

    Regarding your point about the space for the control stations, ideally, I'd like to see a belowdecks control room established, with all fire control (Oto Melara, RWS, RAM) as well as control for the Scaneagle UAVs concentrated down there. I don't believe having fire control of any kind exposed up on the bridge is a good idea in this day and age. I do distinctly remember being surprised by the size of the Samuel Beckett's bridge when I toured her here in Cork back in 2014, so I don't think space as such would be an issue.

    I appreciate that these changes will probably require a significant refit of all affected vessels. However, given that we (humanity in general) are currently slipping into a more turbulent and risky period, a more robust weapons suite is quite simply a common-sense precaution.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    followed by 8 of them Saab Viggens

    Ah yes, some Viggens, aircraft that don't fly anymore..


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    I'd favour stockpileing weapon and radar systems ready to fitted to hulls as needs arise. If a conflict were to arise, we'd find ourselves bottom of the list trying to order these items.

    A small team kept dedicated to the knowhow to fit and use these systems is the only continual outlay then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    thomil wrote: »
    I appreciate that these changes will probably require a significant refit of all affected vessels. However, given that we (humanity in general) are currently slipping into a more turbulent and risky period, a more robust weapons suite is quite simply a common-sense precaution.


    To be blunt if you want that level of changes then the "best" option is going for new hulls, trying to "uparm" the 50's/60's to that level would produce a compromised solution no matter how much money spent on them. There's a reason why they are so markedly cheaper than other EU OPV's beyond the lack of helicopter capability.


    Also happy birthday to the Navy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,656 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    I would say any naval personnel who had leave booked for November can kiss good bye to it with trumps visit. I can see half the navy being deployed off the coast of Clare


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,985 ✭✭✭mikeym


    No, (focus on army/air force)
    roadmaster wrote: »
    I would say any naval personnel who had leave booked for November can kiss good bye to it with trumps visit. I can see half the navy being deployed off the coast of Clare

    :D

    Im sure the ARW and the Secret Service will have the area well secure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    I read in the papers that it is likely the yanks will station a frigate offshore of Doonbeg....


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    I read in the papers that it is likely the yanks will station a frigate offshore of Doonbeg....


    Given that they don't have any Frigates at all that could be interesting.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,697 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Yes, (but only for UN/relief missions)
    sparky42 wrote: »
    Given that they don't have any Frigates at all that could be interesting.

    You clearly know little of the US Naval fleet ;)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,891 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes, (When we have the money)
    Tabnabs wrote: »
    You clearly know little of the US Naval fleet ;)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution


    I think we can take her, lovely ship btw, visited her years ago when I was in Boston.


Advertisement