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

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Options
18283858788163

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    saabsaab wrote: »
    The warning came from a radar station but the Japanese planes were assumed to be friendly aircraft. If they attacked an airship say 100 miles out then there would be no doubt.


    By that stage the outer patrols were already actively hunting the midget submarines from memory, so they knew they were under attack.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    saabsaab wrote: »
    True. can we send a ship or two to rockall?


    Not likely, and of limited given we have 2-3 operational hulls.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    saabsaab wrote: »
    True. can we send a ship or two to rockall?
    Send a confiscated illegal fishing trawler loaded to the gunwales with explosives.

    "where is this rock you speak of ?"


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    Pat Dunne wrote: »
    Has this topic turned into Irish Fantasy Steampunk Naval Service?

    I’d like this twice if I could!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,768 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    I suppose we could equip a few trawlers with guns? Wouldn't want anybody to get kilt though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    saabsaab wrote: »
    I suppose we could equip a few trawlers with guns? Wouldn't want anybody to get kilt though.

    No way the EU would allow that to happen


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,768 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    punchdrunk wrote: »
    No way the EU would allow that to happen


    I don't follow. Sure Scotland is outside the EU now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    saabsaab wrote: »
    I don't follow. Sure Scotland is outside the EU now.

    I meant arming trawlers, I can’t see that being let happen by the eu


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    punchdrunk wrote: »
    I meant arming trawlers, I can’t see that being let happen by the eu


    If they were in National service it wouldn't have anything to do with EU, other than wondering why the actual Feck we don't spend on Defence...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    Can't believe there is five posts on that, there is no point in having a gun on the most of our navy boats, not a mind trawlers, when has a navy gun been fired in anger? Who would we fire it at that we wouldn't get our ass kicked, Ireland is neutral for a reason.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭AndOne


    They're grey vessels I've seen them all recently!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,768 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Can't believe there is five posts on that, there is no point in having a gun on the most of our navy boats, not a mind trawlers, when has a navy gun been fired in anger? Who would we fire it at that we wouldn't get our ass kicked, Ireland is neutral for a reason.


    Neutral doesn't mean not defending your territory or interests see below



    ' Irish fishery protection vessels fired more than 500 warning shots at a Spanish trawler they pursued for five hours Friday after it tried to ram an Irish naval ship, Irish defense forces said.'


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    saabsaab wrote: »

    ' Irish fishery protection vessels fired more than 500 warning shots at a Spanish trawler they pursued for five hours Friday after it tried to ram an Irish naval ship, Irish defense forces said.'

    When did this incident take place?

    EDIT: Google says 36 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/world/irish-said-to-sink-spanish-trawler.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Neutral doesn't mean not defending your territory or interests see below



    ' Irish fishery protection vessels fired more than 500 warning shots at a Spanish trawler they pursued for five hours Friday after it tried to ram an Irish naval ship, Irish defense forces said.'

    When is that from?, technology has moved on, with satellite tracking etc there is nowhere to run,besides the point but 500 warning shots means you have no teeth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    donvito99 wrote: »
    When did this incident take place?

    EDIT: Google says 36 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/world/irish-said-to-sink-spanish-trawler.html


    Back in the 80s, Aisling was the one "may have" sunk her, as she flounder in heavy seas after a 5 hour chase where live rounds were fired on her.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/world/irish-said-to-sink-spanish-trawler.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    When is that from?, technology has moved on, with satellite tracking etc there is nowhere to run,besides the point but 500 warning shots means you have no teeth.


    No, it means you really don't to have to deal with the political/diplomatic fallout of sinking/killing foreign nationals.


    And I have no idea about why you think satellite tracking would make any difference, unless you board the ship there's no way to prove they've been fishing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Can't believe there is five posts on that, there is no point in having a gun on the most of our navy boats, not a mind trawlers, when has a navy gun been fired in anger? Who would we fire it at that we wouldn't get our ass kicked, Ireland is neutral for a reason.


    Because we couldn't be arsed in defending ourselves...


  • Registered Users Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Triangle


    Can't believe there is five posts on that, there is no point in having a gun on the most of our navy boats, not a mind trawlers, when has a navy gun been fired in anger? Who would we fire it at that we wouldn't get our ass kicked, Ireland is neutral for a reason.

    We have huge waters to protect, to just put it down to a war like situation is ridiculous.
    We actually need more navy vessels and stop comparing then to some type of superpower navy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Triangle wrote: »
    We have huge waters to protect, to just put it down to a war like situation is ridiculous.
    We actually need more navy vessels and stop comparing then to some type of superpower navy.


    I'd say don't bother trying to argue tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Because we couldn't be arsed in defending ourselves...

    But Rockal isn't Irish , we don't claim it . It's outside our territorial waters ..
    It's hard to claim your just defending your own,when you're outside your own waters ...
    And I get that we claim that no one else owns it either ,it's an uninhabitable rock ..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,768 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Markcheese wrote: »
    But Rockal isn't Irish , we don't claim it . It's outside our territorial waters ..
    It's hard to claim your just defending your own,when you're outside your own waters ...
    And I get that we claim that no one else owns it either ,it's an uninhabitable rock ..


    Irish Governments have not recognised British claims of ownership. British imperial ambitions were set back by international ratification of the UN convention on the law of the sea (Unclos) in 1982, which states that: “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
    What id claimed is the rights to the use of the waters around it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Irish Governments have not recognised British claims of ownership. British imperial ambitions were set back by international ratification of the UN convention on the law of the sea (Unclos) in 1982, which states that: “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
    What id claimed is the rights to the use of the waters around it.


    "Rockall - Legal Experts Says Scotland Right & Ireland Wrong" https://afloat.ie/resources/news-update/item/42931-rockall-legal-experts-says-scotland-right-ireland-wrong
    Both ministers have pointed to Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which states that “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no EEZ or continental shelf”.

    However, such rocks can still “generate territorial limits”, Prof Long and Prof Symmons say

    Irish academics disagree when it comes to Rockall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,430 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Wow , so it's british because they've said it is since 64 ? And have patrolled it , even though others have disagreed ?
    Is it time to discuss the partition of the rock , the eastern side to scottish , the southern Irish , eastern icelandic and northern danish ,? ( Not involving the nornies ) , I'm sure the seabirds would move to the side with most benevolent regieme ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,768 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Part of that article also says


    'The issue of seabed rights claimed by four countries – Ireland, Britain, Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe islands) and Iceland – is still with the UN, and is awaiting Iceland’s submission before it can be agreed.'


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,613 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    At this rate it wont be long before the entire navy is parked up

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40229948.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,300 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    roadmaster wrote: »
    At this rate it wont be long before the entire navy is parked up

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40229948.html

    Critical mass was passed long ago, now we are in danger of losing momentum completely.
    Meanwhile the DoD will delight at the fact another €50m was returned to the exchequer, unspent.
    The man leaving was shoe-in to be next FOCNS. With his departure, the continuity of command has become cloudy. I don't think there is anyone at commander rank who has anything near his service.

    Would the last one to leave switch off the lights?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,613 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Is there anything to be said for a coup? Just under 100 years since the last attempt!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,984 ✭✭✭mikeym


    roadmaster wrote: »
    At this rate it wont be long before the entire navy is parked up

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40229948.html

    Ive been saying this for years.

    There is a manpower crisis in the NS.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,838 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Best of luck to Brian Fitz in whatever he does next. Don't blame him one bit.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,300 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    mikeym wrote: »
    Ive been saying this for years.

    There is a manpower crisis in the NS.

    What makes you say that?
    Is it the well reported fact that the NS is under-strength by 200 and declining,
    or is it something else?


Advertisement