3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

saabsaab · 07-01-2021 11:16pm

thomil wrote: »

The United States tried something along those lines in the 1920s with the USS Akron and the USS Macon, two rigid airships with a small embarked air group to act as flying scout cruisers. It didn't end well at all, with both airships crashing. And that was in relatively benign weather conditions compared go some of the stuff you'd have to deal with over the North Atlantic.

Airborne aircraft carriers! Pity they didn't have one off Pearl Harbour.

Recent article below

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27546051/airships-us-navy/

ohnonotgmail · 07-01-2021 11:22pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Airborne aircraft carriers! Pity they didn't have one off Pearl Harbour.

Recent article below

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27546051/airships-us-navy/

I stopped reading at this

Airships are no longer filled with hydrogen, instead filled with non-flammable helium, and are actually more difficult to shoot down than one might think.

sparky42 · 08-01-2021 12:21am

saabsaab wrote: »

Airborne aircraft carriers! Pity they didn't have one off Pearl Harbour.

Recent article below

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27546051/airships-us-navy/

Why? They would have been cut to bits easily by Japanese forces, the planes that they could use were extremely limited and wouldn't be able to take more modern fighters.

saabsaab · 08-01-2021 9:54pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Why? They would have been cut to bits easily by Japanese forces, the planes that they could use were extremely limited and wouldn't be able to take more modern fighters.

Probably, but if the had developed might have been better? Also they would have been able to radio a warning?

sparky42 · 08-01-2021 10:24pm

saabsaab wrote: »

Probably, but if the had developed might have been better? Also they would have been able to radio a warning?

Enough to be able to take "modern" aircraft? Highly unlikely (and what doesn't get built given the funding for the US Military pre-WW2). The US had plenty of warnings and capabilities to detect the attack, they just screwed up by the numbers. An Airship getting in the middle wouldn't change much.

saabsaab · 08-01-2021 10:35pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Enough to be able to take "modern" aircraft? Highly unlikely (and what doesn't get built given the funding for the US Military pre-WW2). The US had plenty of warnings and capabilities to detect the attack, they just screwed up by the numbers. An Airship getting in the middle wouldn't change much.

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.

Pat Dunne · 08-01-2021 10:38pm

Has this topic turned into Irish Fantasy Steampunk Naval Service?

saabsaab · 08-01-2021 10:49pm

True. can we send a ship or two to rockall?

sparky42 · 08-01-2021 11:28pm

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.

sparky42 · 08-01-2021 11:29pm

saabsaab wrote: »

True. can we send a ship or two to rockall?

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

Capt'n Midnight · 09-01-2021 12:13am

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 ?"

punchdrunk · 09-01-2021 2:06am

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Has this topic turned into Irish Fantasy Steampunk Naval Service?

I’d like this twice if I could!

saabsaab · 09-01-2021 1:46pm

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

punchdrunk · 09-01-2021 10:20pm

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

saabsaab · 09-01-2021 10:26pm

punchdrunk wrote: »

No way the EU would allow that to happen

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

punchdrunk · 09-01-2021 11:52pm

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

sparky42 · 10-01-2021 12:01am

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...

Widdensushi · 10-01-2021 12:08am

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.

AndOne · 10-01-2021 12:09am

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

saabsaab · 10-01-2021 12:16am

Widdensushi wrote: »

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.'

donvito99 · 10-01-2021 12:18am

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

Widdensushi · 10-01-2021 12:21am

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.

sparky42 · 10-01-2021 12:22am

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

sparky42 · 10-01-2021 12:24am

Widdensushi wrote: »

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.

sparky42 · 10-01-2021 12:25am

Widdensushi wrote: »

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...

Triangle · 10-01-2021 12:25am

Widdensushi wrote: »

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.

sparky42 · 10-01-2021 12:26am

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.

Markcheese · 10-01-2021 9:04am

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 ..

saabsaab · 10-01-2021 12:59pm

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.

donvito99 · 10-01-2021 2:01pm

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.

Markcheese · 10-01-2021 2:39pm

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 ...

saabsaab · 10-01-2021 7:43pm

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.'

roadmaster · 20-02-2021 9:33am

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

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

roadmaster · 20-02-2021 2:32pm

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

mikeym · 21-02-2021 1:00pm

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.

Larbre34 · 21-02-2021 3:15pm

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

mikeym · 21-02-2021 9:48pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

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?

I should have mentioned that theres no point in building a big multi role vessel if there isnt anyone to crew it.

sparky42 · 21-02-2021 10:49pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

That's not how it works.
You don't build ships for today. You build them for the next 30+ years. The ship it was due to replace, it's launch I attended when I was still in Primary school. I'm almost 50 now. It barely resembles , internally and externally, the ship that went down the slip back then. It was designed for helicopters, we no longer have helicopters that can land on it, and the deck is no longer capable of holding a helicopter if we did. its Ops room was repurposed, and much of it's sensors were removed as they became obsolete. The cabins designated for aircrew were repurposed for other needs. The Hangar became a gym/briefing room.
By the time this ship was built, the crewing issue could well have passed.
But once you "pause" it yet again, time passes, needs change, and who knows the UK may make us an offer we can't refuse on some Type 31 Frigates instead (as long as we arm them ourselves).
Then the reason for the EPV/MRV, and the missions it could have done, the capability it could have brought to the entire defence forces will be gone.

Given the usual rate capital procurement goes through, even if the project had moved to the next stage as reportedly planned, by the time the new hull would be in service, either the manpower crisis would have been arrested at least if not reversed, or the Navy would have ceased to be operational. Yeah gapping this now means likely the project will never happen and the NS will remain a OPV Coastal Patrol force, something I'm sure would make the DOD happy.

jonnybigwallet · 22-02-2021 10:43am

Yeah. A real kick in the teeth for the military. Handing back the 50 million underspend is ridiculous when a wee bit of that would fund a decent pay rise and balance carried forward to buy the new MRV.

Obviously the skills needed by naval personnel are not readily available on the open market and need in house training. However I believe I know how to solve the Army manning crisis at a stroke. I'll post about this later on another thread.

sparky42 · 22-02-2021 2:02pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

It's like the DoD taking revenge for the fuss over overseas allowance. Now it won't be an issue, as any notion of having a deploy-able asset(other than an under-armed, non-heli capable opv) is put to bed.

Are you suggesting the DOD might be petty and vindictive? Never...

sparky42 · 22-02-2021 2:04pm

mikeym wrote: »

I should have mentioned that theres no point in building a big multi role vessel if there isnt anyone to crew it.

Even though this is a capital expenditure and cancelling it won’t make a blind bit of difference to the manpower crisis, all this means is DOD pats themselves on the back for handing back more millions to Finance while doing nothing for the retention crisis.

donvito99 · 22-02-2021 2:18pm

There was a very interesting piece in the IT on Friday about the toxic relationship between the DF and the DoD, and the unusual - by comparative international standards - influence which the DoD has over basic, day to day operations of the DF

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/the-cold-war-between-the-irish-military-and-the-civilians-in-charge-of-them-1.4489731

Larbre34 · 23-02-2021 2:45am

Funnily enough, and I have some past experience of this, the worst thing you can do with a public service budget is send it back.

The DoF don't like to look like the idiots that gave you money you hadn't the capacity to spend. DoD will be very unpopular for quitting on the project.

Markcheese · 23-02-2021 9:50am

Dohvolle wrote: »

Based on their WP implementation update, they hand it back because they have failed to commence the projects the money was earmarked for during the fiscal year.
That's incompetence, pure and simple. No other dept does this.

I thought many government departments were doing that this year because of covid ?
Obviously not health ,social welfare or justice who've been a teeny bit busy ...

roundymac · 23-02-2021 12:35pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Are you suggesting the DOD might be petty and vindictive? Never...

Civil Servents are.:mad:

roadmaster · 23-02-2021 12:49pm

Mary lou friends will out number the navy the way numbers are going!

mikeym · 23-02-2021 11:33pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

That's not how it works.
You don't build ships for today. You build them for the next 30+ years. The ship it was due to replace, it's launch I attended when I was still in Primary school. I'm almost 50 now. It barely resembles , internally and externally, the ship that went down the slip back then. It was designed for helicopters, we no longer have helicopters that can land on it, and the deck is no longer capable of holding a helicopter if we did. its Ops room was repurposed, and much of it's sensors were removed as they became obsolete. The cabins designated for aircrew were repurposed for other needs. The Hangar became a gym/briefing room.
By the time this ship was built, the crewing issue could well have passed.
But once you "pause" it yet again, time passes, needs change, and who knows the UK may make us an offer we can't refuse on some Type 31 Frigates instead (as long as we arm them ourselves).
Then the reason for the EPV/MRV, and the missions it could have done, the capability it could have brought to the entire defence forces will be gone.

You make a great point but unfortunately the government have no interest in fixing the retention crisis in the NS.

This so called Independant Commission is just a smokescreen.

mikeym · 22-03-2021 12:09am

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40248680.html?fbclid=IwAR1sJiZsCxiLLduuwxfJEllMKV1cPcGx_3eWzXWdPvvSDsNWOocv213q3SU

Morale at an all time low.

No retention policies.

Cant keep the Engine Room Artificers.

Thank You Fine Gael and Minister Coveney for doing an amazing job :rolleyes:

roadmaster · 22-03-2021 12:16pm

mikeym wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40248680.html?fbclid=IwAR1sJiZsCxiLLduuwxfJEllMKV1cPcGx_3eWzXWdPvvSDsNWOocv213q3SU

Morale at an all time low.

No retention policies.

Cant keep the Engine Room Artificers.

Thank You Fine Gael and Minister Coveney for doing an amazing job :rolleyes:

In fairness to the part time minister Mr. Coveney most of the damage was done by his buddy Leo & the clown Paul.

On a separate note i see in todays examiner there is calls for the return to a 3 brigade army

Peregrine · 04-04-2021 1:24am

A new DoD tender for "Advisor services to support the procurement" of an MRV was published. 3 year contract worth €250,000 supporting business case development, final specifications, request for tenders, review of tenders and contract award.

Marine Advisor Services to support the procurement of a Multi-Role Vessel

The White Paper on Defence 2015 provides for the replacement of the current Naval Service flagship LÉ Eithne, which is approaching its end of lifespan, with a Multi-Role Vessel, which will be enabled for helicopter operations and will have a freight carrying capacity.

It is the Government’s intent that this new vessel will be tailor made to meet the requirements of the Defence Forces, with a design specification capable of providing a flexible and adaptive capacity for a wide range of maritime tasks, both at home and overseas.

It will be enabled for helicopter operations and it will also require a freight carrying capacity which will allow the Naval Service to transport personnel, freight and mission equipment to areas of operations.

The procurement of the MRV is in strategic alignment with Government Policy. The MRV is included in the Government National Development Plan as a major capital project and is listed in the Defence Equipment Development Plan. The intention is that the procurement will be conducted in accordance with contemporary and emerging best practice in government procurement.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/185941/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

Comments