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

Interesting articles

1525355575868

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭mupper2


    The article conflated 2 separate projects the primary/surveillance radar is a thing on its own, the MR-SAM will the whole system radar/TELs etc. There is also if not a formal program yet a real want for a mobile MANPAD/SHORAD system



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    And if TPY-4 is chosen, it is effective both as a fixed and mobile system.

    So for instance you could have 3 or 4 fixed installations under domes and another handful of towed units to complement them, or deploy to fresh territory, such as on UN duty or with the EU Battlegroups.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 300 ✭✭mupper2


    Deleted



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 267 ✭✭zone 1




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Nobody.

    So its pretty irrelevant from that perspective.

    But whoever is going to do it, must have full integrated control of the radar and the missile system, both ground to air and anti-ship.

    So toss a coin for any of the three forces, but most likely the Air Corps with a presence of Army and Navy systems and intelligence personnel.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The embedded linking isn't working, but the Times has it that Ireland is actively considering joining Sky Shield (European Sky Shield Initiative) , as one option for an integrated anti-missile, anti-aircraft solution, rather than a solo G2A project linked to the new radar.

    Probably most interestingly, those already signed up include Malta, Austria and Switzerland of all people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    it seems pretty much the same as the article in the mirror a week ago with no new details?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    It seams at the moment only eastern EU & the UK that are going with skyshield with Spain and Italy not committing at the moment and France thinking of a different plan.

    From an overall plan when we have are primary radar in place it will cover a hugh section of the north atlantic which would help the overall skyshield picture.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Italy is most likely holding out for much the same reason as France, the Aster program.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    No doubt, but theres no reason Aster couldn't become part of the system. UK use it too already.

    The more of these elements that are European developed, funded and built, the better. We don't know what sort of United States of America we'll be dealing with in a relatively short time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    The U.K. doesn’t use the land based system, only for the RN while both France and Italy use it for both.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Quite so. But systemically, they are familiar with the product.

    It is interesting though, that the provision of an Integrated Air and Missile Defence remains just a conversation in the UK and in most NATO members. Its various systems like Sky Sabre and Land Ceptor and what not, are mobile field deployed solutions that are designed for force protection rather than homeland defence.

    Maybe this whole initiative is try and get NATO and the EU on the same page and quickly begin filling some glaring gaps in homeland defence, in the current security environment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    they are, but you have the Franco-Italian group investing in their own development pathway for the Aster (with I think the NT version due for trials in the coming weeks) while the U.K. is still hedging about backing a BMD a capability for their systems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Mirror has an article today numbers up all services and leavers down. Money talks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Its not yet a reliable trend to show the ship has turned around, so to speak.

    In 2 years, then we'll know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    True, not just to see how many of the new people make it through training but also of course whether Retention numbers continue to get better. But it’s good news along with areas like improving base facilities.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    The 2023 annual report is out… Not sure why they bothered?

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/8ebed-department-of-defence-and-defence-forces-annual-report-2023/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    So extra 2 helicopters delivered in Q2 2025 so they must be under construction as we speak.

    I like the part were they say in regards to the new Command & Control system they say the ongoing work is significant, Complex and sensitive. Thats code for the 3 services are fighting each other over who does what.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    wait until they are in Baldonnel before counting them as on track for Q2 2025, but yeah the bloodletting between the three would be funny if wasn’t so tragic. All three services are to grow and get at least some new capabilities/equipment/people embrace that instead of wasting time and political will fighting over who gets to be top dog.


    In other news, some interesting insight into the future of the naval base with the tender for the High Level development plan being published :

    The Plan should allow for and be not limited to –

    Berthage for NS ships and Naval Service Reserve vessels, Naval Diving section, Special Operations Forces (SOF) berthage, Rigid-Hulled Inflatable Boats (RHIBs) and sail training berthage
    Fuelling facilities
    Maritime Operations centre
    Information centre multi agency
    Communication centre
    Naval Warfare training centre
    Office accommodation and conference facilities
    Living accommodation and messing and welfare facilities
    Workshop facilities – Mechanical, Electrical, , RHIB maintenance, Remotely Operated Vehicles(ROV) maintenance, Ordnance training and maintenance facilities together with cranage
    Workshop spares and logistics facilities
    Diving training and maintenance workshop
    Maritime SOF facility
    Shooting Range
    Covered Dry-dock facilities with cranage
    Dedicated training facilities – lecture theatre(s), classrooms​
    Heli-pad, Hangar, fuelling and first line maintenance for medium lift helicopter, facility for Fixed wing UAV’s
    Sport and training facilities and changing facilities
    Primary Care Medical Facility to incorporate medical and dental surgeries, aural booth, physio room, PSS and administration offices and associated locker rooms.
    Car park facilities
    Swimming training pool
    Security Fencing and control measures
    Road Transport and maintenance and refuelling facilities
    Secure storage facility for containerised high value equipment
    Ammunition Storage Area
    Data management centre
    Sustainable transport facility including public transport arrangements



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,060 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Is there space for all that ?

    Are the navy getting the remediated spoil tip / park ? ( Which should always have gone to the naval service)

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    They aren't getting the park area, but are going to get the rest of the old Steel site, much of this has been put forward before, and the tender has gone out for cutting up the drydock door and removing it already.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,060 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I'm assuming that the drydock is never going back into service so ,

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,244 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    I hope the media and are elected officals condem Hezbollah as much they condem israel for the below attack. I also would like to know did simon harris raise with the lebanise PM last week the.murder of an irish solider and the serious injurys to another in his country.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/1031/1478383-camp-shamrock/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    No that "Master plan" tender list has the dock being restored, roofed and internal cranes, but the existing door has been floating in the dock for basically a hundred years now, its not restorable, or at least not viable. Think it might be a first step towards restoring the dock.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Geological speed as usual, but it is good to see some the ambition finally crystallise into project planning.

    Personally I'd be taking back the park and the crematorium site on Rocky Island. There should be nothing north of Paddy's Point that the DF does not fully control and secure for their own needs. Its the best natural point of security boundary.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭sparky42


    To be honest, even if you somehow kicked the entire NS off the island and flooded it with contractors that list will still take years if not a decade and it’s not going to be cheap. I mean given they are going “heritage” with the rebuilding of the accommodation blocks I can imagine the headaches when they go near the drydock, I’m sure all sorts of nutters will try blocking any redevelopment for “historical” reasons.


    As for the Park and Rocky Island, those battles were lost long ago, and the NS isn’t getting them back.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I agree completely.

    Which is why I believe that ring fencing the entire complex and saying 'Defence: You can **** off' to the local busybodies, would be in the interests or advancing the mind-boggling array of upgrades and new facilities.

    Though I recognise it won't happen.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭Grassy Knoll




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,429 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    eTenders.ie, under the DoD

    Its a good idea to do this type of masterplan, but I'd like to see one done for the Air (Force) too. It clear that this element is also going to have very considerable increase in capability demanded, all while its own single facility is being hemmed in and limited by private development outside it, the siting of other unrelated DF installations on the aerodrome.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 435 ✭✭Grassy Knoll


    thks, to be fair ambitious in scope and a would be a strategic blueprint for the future development of the facility. IMHO if done properly it could be a very impressive modern base for the Navy and would underscore the level of ambition we have for our maritime affairs. There are a bunch of piecemeal projects completed, underway and proposed .This could tie them together and accelerate work on other dilapidated aspects of the site. To my knowledge the possibility of a covered dock is now being explicitly called out for the first time by the official side ? super if it came to pass.

    Agree re Baldonnel, there is by contrast some ‘greenfield’ there, what do we want from that area, more hangars, apron, accommodation, and then for what type of aircraft - elephant in the room so to speak is fast jets - if we ever go down that road (big if) is Baldonnel even suitable…. ??

    Of course more immediately the issue of enlisted numbers is front and centre..



Advertisement