LÉ Aisling fate

Larbre34 · 12-12-2019 1:54pm #1

The Irish Times has it that former LÉ Aisling in now in the service of a Libyan warlord, who has installed new armaments, having being acquired from a UAE based agent, who broke UN embargoes to do so.

So, Dept of Defence sells it for €100,000 to a Dutch agent, who sells it to the UAE interest for €473,000 after a year, who flips it immediately for €1,300,000 to the villain of Tripoli. Egypt and the UAE are supporting the rebels, while Turkey and others support the current "government"

Its a disgusting situation, for which the DoD rightly say they have no "trailing responsibilities", but as it has arisen (and not for the first time) I think the policy should be to remove all fluids and degradables from hulls that have ended their service life and sink them as artificial reefs in our own waters. We simply cannot trust the morals of international shipping agents.

PCeeeee · 12-12-2019 1:58pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Irish Times has it that former LÉ Aisling in now in the service of a Libyan warlord, who has installed new armaments, having being acquired from a UAE based agent, who broke UN embargoes to do so.

So, Dept of Defence sells it for €100,000 to a Dutch agent, who sells it to the UAE interest for €473,000 after a year, who flips it immediately for €1,300,000 to the villain of Tripoli. Egypt and the UAE are supporting the rebels, while Turkey and others support the current "government"

Its a disgusting situation, for which the DoD rightly say they have no "trailing responsibilities", but as it has arisen (and not for the first time) I think the policy should be to remove all fluids and degradables from hulls that have ended their service life and sink them as artificial reefs in our own waters. We simply cannot trust the morals of international shipping agents.

They sold it too cheap.

TheBoyConor · 12-12-2019 1:59pm

You are basically proposing that the ships be dumped at sea. There is enough rubbish and things around the oceans without the DoD dumping end of life ships out there. It would also be a completely avoidable and preventable hazard to navigation.
It would be environmentally very unsound.

It is not the governments fault that some mad man in Libya has the ship.
If he didn't get the ex LE Aisling, he would have gotten some other ship to use. It doesn't really make a difference.

Victor · 12-12-2019 2:00pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

They sold it too cheap.

Did you bid higher?

Alkers · 12-12-2019 2:55pm

And she isn't that much of a warship, whatever armament your man managed to get from the UAE, he could have stuck on any old boat to much the same effect.

PCeeeee · 12-12-2019 3:56pm

Victor wrote: »

Did you bid higher?

If the figures quoted in the OP are accurate then they sold too cheap. Regardless of whatever bidding process was involved.

If you can't see that then I'm afraid we have nothing to discuss

Victor · 12-12-2019 4:15pm

PCeeeee wrote: »

If the figures quoted in the OP are accurate then they sold too cheap.

But nobody was willing to pay more. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. There would have been material differences in the condition of the ship between when it was first sold to when it was sold the third time, e.g. some armament could have been added. At Irish prices, it probably costs €100,000 to fill the fuel tanks.

What someone in a war zone is willing to pay for something is also markedly different to what someone in a non-war zone is willing to pay.

Here, even if we discount the Tripoli example, there is a huge variation in prices.

https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1200509856442146816

If you buy a car and sell it later, do you insist on getting the original sales price?

PCeeeee · 12-12-2019 5:38pm

Victor wrote: »

If you buy a car and sell it later, do you insist on getting the original sales price?

Firstly thank you for a comprehensive reply. And I take on board what you're saying.

But if I might respond to the quoted point. No I wouldn't insist but I would feel I could have done better.

sparky42 · 12-12-2019 10:22pm

Look the reality is that the DOD got the most they rationally thought they could for it. If they had pulled her for auction and x months later she only sold for 75K there would be complaints that they were fools for not selling her for 100K.

As to what has been done to her, the state isn't liable for that, nor responsible for what she might be used for, though I pity anyone who thinks she can go up against a modern warship.

As stated what should have be down is a Sinkex as a training exercise for the Navy/Air Corps/Army, other nations around the globe do it without any issue.

roadmaster · 12-12-2019 10:39pm

Why is this being made an issue now it’s been known for months where the ship is. I think someone here even uploaded a video a while back of the ship being delivered to its new owner

sparky42 · 12-12-2019 10:49pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Why is this being made an issue now it’s been known for months where the ship is. I think someone here even uploaded a video a while back of the ship being delivered to its new owner

There's been a UN report released into her, she's been rearmed which does violate the UN sanctions.

TheBoyConor · 13-12-2019 1:26am

Here she is in her new home.....

https://youtu.be/v6SZfyRc_ww

Larbre34 · 14-12-2019 3:57pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

You are basically proposing that the ships be dumped at sea. There is enough rubbish and things around the oceans without the DoD dumping end of life ships out there. It would also be a completely avoidable and preventable hazard to navigation.
It would be environmentally unsound

It has been done 60 times before with decommissioned naval hulls, all over the world and in some hugely sensitive ecosystems. Obviously it is not a spontaneous event.

joeysoap · 14-12-2019 4:13pm

happens all the time. Looks perfectly safe once the ship is purged of all oils.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_ships_for_wreck_diving_sites

I can recall Portugal sinking a couple off the algarve a few years ago. Takes ages to strip the ships down though, something we wouldn’t spend the time or effort doing.

Added

http://www.oceanrevival.org/en/navios/almeida-carvalho/afundamento/item/sinking-almeida-carvalho.html

sparky42 · 14-12-2019 5:01pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

It has been done 60 times before with decommissioned naval hulls, all over the world and in some hugely sensitive ecosystems. Obviously it is not a spontaneous event.

Probably even more than that over the last century.

Beta Ray Bill · 16-12-2019 2:46pm

When military grade weapons/vehicles reach EOL or are no longer required by the nation that owns them, one of three things should happen.
1: Sell the item to a "reputable" nation/government that would have interest in purchasing it.
2: Disable and Sell the item to a museum.
3: Completely destroy the item in question.

Under no circumstances should a functioning or mostly functioning military grade piece of equipment be sold to a private firm/individual.
As it nearly always ends up leading to situations like this, where said piece of equipment has ended up in somewhere it really shouldn't have OR we end up in a situation where wealthy private individuals are buying late Soviet era Mig-29's, Tanks, and other equipment (which they think of as Toys) which could be easily militarised.

whisky_galore · 16-12-2019 2:55pm

joeysoap wrote: »

happens all the time. Looks perfectly safe once the ship is purged of all oils.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_ships_for_wreck_diving_sites

I can recall Portugal sinking a couple off the algarve a few years ago. Takes ages to strip the ships down though, something we wouldn’t spend the time or effort doing.

Added

http://www.oceanrevival.org/en/navios/almeida-carvalho/afundamento/item/sinking-almeida-carvalho.html

Only worth doing it here in relatively deep and/or sheltered waters and out of the way of navigation.

No point sinking it off the "wild Atlantic way" (tm) as an attraction, it would be in bits in a few decades, just sheets of steel on the sea floor.
Given our litigious society, there would be divers cutting fingers and getting injured and looking for free money off the DoD!

Victor · 16-12-2019 2:58pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

When military grade weapons/vehicles reach EOL or are no longer required by the nation that owns them, one of three things should happen.
1: Sell the item to a "reputable" nation/government that would have interest in purchasing it.
2: Disable and Sell the item to a museum.
3: Completely destroy the item in question.

I agree.

Under no circumstances should a functioning or mostly functioning military grade piece of equipment be sold to a private firm/individual.

Aisling was not a military grade piece of equipment. It was a trawler design fitted with crew accommodation and a magazine, previously used as a patrol vessel.

Rub a Dub · 16-12-2019 3:20pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Here she is in her new home.....

After spending years on duty in the cold stormy waters around Ireland, It's nice to see her floating about in warmer waters, with a nice bit of sunshine on her bow.

Larbre34 · 16-12-2019 3:21pm

Victor wrote: »

I agree.

Aisling was not a military grade piece of equipment. It was a trawler design fitted with crew accommodation and a magazine, previously used as a patrol vessel.

Try telling the UN its a trawler.

Alkers · 16-12-2019 3:33pm

Victor wrote: »

I agree.

Aisling was not a military grade piece of equipment. It was a trawler design fitted with crew accommodation and a magazine, previously used as a patrol vessel.

Absolutely, it would be the equivalent of selling off an old army truck or jeep etc. It wasn't a weapon

Manic Moran · 18-12-2019 5:57pm

Under no circumstances should a functioning or mostly functioning military grade piece of equipment be sold to a private firm/individual.
As it nearly always ends up leading to situations like this, where said piece of equipment has ended up in somewhere it really shouldn't have OR we end up in a situation where wealthy private individuals are buying late Soviet era Mig-29's, Tanks, and other equipment (which they think of as Toys) which could be easily militarised.

Toyota pick-up trucks can be easily militarised. One can turn a cargo ship into a helicopter carrier, a catamaran ferry into a littoral combat vessel.

The Marchettis were sold to a company in the US which refurbished them, and then sold them on to private pilots in the US. I remember seeing them on trade-a-plane for about $180k, which I thought was pretty reasonable for a fully aerobatic aircraft. They can be used for recreation or business, "Air Combat USA" has kitted out Marchettis for laser tag dogfighting.

For ground combat vehicles, it is my experience that private collectors do a damned sight better job of preserving history than governments do. Go to a government tank museum, you'll normally see rusted out hulks with a good coat of paint on the outside. Then compare with private collectors, who usually actually restore their vehicles, often to fully operational condition. And then run them so that folks can see them. (And yes, in the US, 'fully operational' includes the weapons. There hasn't been much issue with privately owned tanks causing trouble).

The US and UK are replete with examples of pieces of military equipment deemed surplus to requirement which are then destroyed, often to include museum pieces when they cannot be saved by the government. Most recently, the US Army cut up an entire collection in Connecticut a couple months ago because the government couldn't be arsed to do anything else with it (Much to the anger of the Army museum's curator). A number of rare vehicles destroyed.

In short, I believe your blanket statement to be a little short-sighted, and your desire to ensure 'proper' future use of the weapons (Ignoring alternate sources of the things) can likely be adequately dealt with by following the normal weapons control laws.

Beta Ray Bill · 18-12-2019 7:33pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Toyota pick-up trucks can be easily militarised.

Technicals have been around for a long time, It's less than a days work to convert a Pickup trunk into a Technical

Manic Moran wrote: »

One can turn a cargo ship into a helicopter carrier
a catamaran ferry into a littoral combat vessel.

Agreed, however, unlike a technical, a significant about of structural work (and a place to do this work) is required do the above.
It would take money, time and knowledge.
they'd also need to get their hands on the boats to begin with, which would be difficult for them to do, given the current situation.
You could be talking months if not years to do what you're saying and they may not even be that effective.

It took Marvin Heemeyer (Professional Welder) a year and half to modify a Bulldozzer.
Modification takes a long time.

LÉ Aisling will be 100's of times easier to covert back to military use than a trawler would.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Marchettis were sold to a company in the US which refurbished them, and then sold them on to private pilots in the US. I remember seeing them on trade-a-plane for about $180k, which I thought was pretty reasonable for a fully aerobatic aircraft. They can be used for recreation or business, "Air Combat USA" has kitted out Marchettis for laser tag dogfighting.

For ground combat vehicles, it is my experience that private collectors do a damned sight better job of preserving history than governments do. Go to a government tank museum, you'll normally see rusted out hulks with a good coat of paint on the outside. Then compare with private collectors, who usually actually restore their vehicles, often to fully operational condition. And then run them so that folks can see them. (And yes, in the US, 'fully operational' includes the weapons. There hasn't been much issue with privately owned tanks causing trouble).

I'm not going to get into "Weapons Control" in a place like the US.
Doesn't matter if it's a Tank, Plane, etc... If it's "readily" modifiable for military use, people really shouldn't have them.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US and UK are replete with examples of pieces of military equipment deemed surplus to requirement which are then destroyed, often to include museum pieces when they cannot be saved by the government. Most recently, the US Army cut up an entire collection in Connecticut a couple months ago because the government couldn't be arsed to do anything else with it (Much to the anger of the Army museum's curator). A number of rare vehicles destroyed.

I can understand this for things like WW2 Items, (IE Items that were used in or changed the course of humanity)
However modern(ish) weapons that have only ever been used to bomb the middle east have little or no historic value.

Manic Moran wrote: »

In short, I believe your blanket statement to be a little short-sighted, and your desire to ensure 'proper' future use of the weapons (Ignoring alternate sources of the things) can likely be adequately dealt with by following the normal weapons control laws.

It's just my opinion that equipment designed and intended for military use should not end up in the hands of Civilians.
They were designed to kill, or designed to enable/help/assist people to kill, and have little or no historic value... why on earth would you want something like that?

jonnybigwallet · 19-12-2019 10:48am

Most of the ww2 German u boats were scuttled by the allied post surrender.

whisky_galore · 19-12-2019 10:52am

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Most of the ww2 German u boats were scuttled by the allied post surrender.

Next to no-one wanted them. Even the surface ships dished out as prizes most had short lives, sunk as targets or scrapped.

sparky42 · 19-12-2019 3:37pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Next to no-one wanted them. Even the surface ships dished out as prizes most had short lives, sunk as targets or scrapped.

Also I'd bet there was some view to deny them to the Russians, just as the Americans sank the Japanese subs after they surrendered.

Tabnabs · 19-12-2019 4:09pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Agreed, however, unlike a technical, a significant about of structural work (and a place to do this work) is required do the above.

It would take money, time and knowledge.

they'd also need to get their hands on the boats to begin with, which would be difficult for them to do, given the current situation.

You could be talking months if not years to do what you're saying and they may not even be that effective.

And yet, none of that is actually the case. Westpac Express:

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freightlink.co.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fshared%2Fwestpac_express_hsv-4676_unloading_marine_lav.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Capacity:
Troop capacity: 970
Cargo capacity: 20,698 square feet: RORO designed for roll on/roll off service (typical loads - 153 HUMMWVs or 12 AAVPs and 20 LAVs)

Crew:
11 military
13 civilian

Now the Dublin Swift, after a short refit with no structural work, for passenger use.

sparky42 · 19-12-2019 4:19pm

That's a transport ship, it has no modifications for combat (as one of her sister ships demonstrated when hit by Rebel fire of Yemen) and wouldn't be considered a warship.

Beta Ray Bill · 19-12-2019 4:55pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

And yet, none of that is actually the case. Westpac Express:

Capacity:
Troop capacity: 970
Cargo capacity: 20,698 square feet: RORO designed for roll on/roll off service (typical loads - 153 HUMMWVs or 12 AAVPs and 20 LAVs)

Crew:
11 military
13 civilian

Now the Dublin Swift, after a short refit with no structural work, for passenger use.

Except that it is.

Your example is from the US military, the country with the most military knowhow, most money and most bases to perform such a modification.

And even at that the ship has no offensive or defensive weapon capabilities...
they took out the seats and painted it grey.

whisky_galore · 19-12-2019 6:12pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Also I'd bet there was some view to deny them to the Russians, just as the Americans sank the Japanese subs after they surrendered.

There was an absolute glut of material after WW2, you couldnt give the stuff away. I would imagine the Soviets would rather develop and build their own new stuff instead of using half clapped out Nazi cast offs.

It's less hassle to take what you want off the sub like papers and documents and just sink the thing, the USN captain who salvaged and brought back U505 almost got a court marshal for his trouble!

sparky42 · 19-12-2019 6:44pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

There was an absolute glut of material after WW2, you couldnt give the stuff away. I would imagine the Soviets would rather develop and build their own new stuff instead of using half clapped out Nazi cast offs.

It's less hassle to take what you want off the sub like papers and documents and just sink the thing, the USN captain who salvaged and brought back U505 almost got a court marshal for his trouble!

It was to prevent the Russians from getting any technological advancements from the Japanese subs (particularly their very large ones), when you consider that the late model Type XXI had features that found their way into both Soviet and American designs post war.

LÉ Aisling fate

Comments