This is why...

Psychlops · 28-05-2021 11:14pm #1

The Air Corps will never have fast air/SAR & why the Navy are rotting away, nobody cares.

Shameful.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-had-to-rely-on-eu-ship-to-patrol-fishing-waters-due-to-naval-shortages-1.4578225

donvito99 · 30-05-2021 10:09am

Psychlops wrote: »

The Air Corps will never have fast air/SAR & why the Navy are rotting away, nobody cares.

Shameful.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-had-to-rely-on-eu-ship-to-patrol-fishing-waters-due-to-naval-shortages-1.4578225

Perhaps an opportunity for the NS to drop fisheries protection as its primary role. Push the entirety of the cost a la SAR to the Dept of the Marine and spend a period rebuilding the NS, then re-equip for a useful defence purpose. At that stage, the NS can always contribute to fisheries protection but only where the civilian agencies need a dig out i.e. a Japanese fleet turns up again.

Hoboo · 30-05-2021 10:11am

Psychlops wrote: »

The Air Corps will never have fast air/SAR & why the Navy are rotting away, nobody cares.

Shameful.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-had-to-rely-on-eu-ship-to-patrol-fishing-waters-due-to-naval-shortages-1.4578225

Why is it shameful?

roadmaster · 30-05-2021 10:24am

donvito99 wrote: »

Perhaps an opportunity for the NS to drop fisheries protection as its primary role. Push the entirety of the cost a la SAR to the Dept of the Marine and spend a period rebuilding the NS, then re-equip for a useful defence purpose. At that stage, the NS can always contribute to fisheries protection but only where the civilian agencies need a dig out i.e. a Japanese fleet turns up again.

Maybe they should drop it. People make points here that SAR is not a military function and should not be done by the air corps , the same could be said about fisheries protection is not a military role and should not be done by the navy

donvito99 · 30-05-2021 11:36am

roadmaster wrote: »

Maybe they should drop it. People make points here that SAR is not a military function and should not be done by the air corps , the same could be said about fisheries protection is not a military role and should not be done by the navy

The very fact that there is an EU non military vessel undertaking this task suggests that the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority could charter their own OPV like vessels. CHC could undertake the airborne patrols.

At which point you can tie up the whole fleet, retire the CASAs and think about how the DF is going to use it's people to protect the state.

Fisheries is obviously something that a navy is best placed to protect, but if the task wears down the navy completely for the sake of inspecting nets and log books, it has to be dropped.

Montage of Feck · 30-05-2021 11:37am

Are the navy still on Mediterranean ferry duty?

Larbre34 · 30-05-2021 12:13pm

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Are the navy still on Mediterranean ferry duty?

They aren't involved in the Mediterranean operation any longer, but take your BS someplace else all the same.

sparky42 · 30-05-2021 2:25pm

Hoboo wrote: »

Why is it shameful?

That the manpower crisis has gutted the ability of the NS to operate...
How is that not shameful?

sparky42 · 30-05-2021 2:26pm

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Are the navy still on Mediterranean ferry duty?

If you are that ignorant of what is going on why bother posting at all?

30-05-2021 2:39pm

Hoboo wrote: »

Why is it shameful?

Because we should be able to secure our territory, with our own people, organisations, equipment, we don't know if we can rely on other countries or organisations all the time.

roadmaster wrote: »

Maybe they should drop it. People make points here that SAR is not a military function and should not be done by the air corps , the same could be said about fisheries protection is not a military role and should not be done by the navy

The cost of operations should be billed to other depts, should not come out of defence forces budget.
Really the defence forces are an ideal opportunity for the state to maintain a body of trained and experienced people with equipment necessary.

By rights the AC, NS or the State should operate a few long range reconnaissance drones (and some smaller supplementary ones) for fisheries protection/drugs interdiction/security, (alongside surface ships and manned aircraft).

There has been little to no excuse we cant secure our borders, the money is filtered into the charity industry and NGOs and into some peoples pcokets.
I would have the health service and housing improved before I suggested spending an additional cent on defence, but we could have had all those things except they were either mismanaged, very intentionally managed so the money goes a certain way.

Larbre34 wrote: »

They aren't involved in the Mediterranean operation any longer, but take your BS someplace else all the same.

Well, they should never have been there, the State doesn't mind sending the NS to the Med, but can barely scrape crews together here, ships are being tied up.
That was like many things the State does, for show.

Larbre34 · 30-05-2021 4:52pm

At the time the Naval Service was committed to the Med operations, in 2015, it didn't have the level of manpower crisis it has now.

Even if it did, rescuing other humans from peril and distress was still the right thing to do. I'm quite sure they didn't think it was for show.

Psychlops · 30-05-2021 8:11pm

Hoboo wrote: »

Why is it shameful?

Are you for real?

Psychlops · 30-05-2021 8:14pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The very fact that there is an EU non military vessel undertaking this task suggests that the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority could charter their own OPV like vessels. CHC could undertake the airborne patrols.

At which point you can tie up the whole fleet, retire the CASAs and think about how the DF is going to use it's people to protect the state.

Fisheries is obviously something that a navy is best placed to protect, but if the task wears down the navy completely for the sake of inspecting nets and log books, it has to be dropped.

Remember it wasnt that long ago that in order to Arrest a vessel the Navy had to bring a Garda with them to sea.

sparky42 · 30-05-2021 11:50pm

1874 wrote: »

Well, they should never have been there, the State doesn't mind sending the NS to the Med, but can barely scrape crews together here, ships are being tied up.
That was like many things the State does, for show.

There wasn't the issue back then as for example the P64 hadn't come into service from memory, and in fact ending the operations were another hit to retention.

sparky42 · 01-07-2021 5:23pm

And oh look, in percentage terms defence is still one of the biggest underspenders this year, I'm sure the department must be popping the champagne and congratulating themselves.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/underspend-in-key-government-departments-committee-hears-1.4609098

Larbre34 · 02-07-2021 2:18pm

It's so strange. In other departments and State bodies, the very worst thing you can do is hand back budget.

Underspending just demonstrates than you are crap at your job and even worse, that the Government that entrusted you to do that job, are mugs.

Stovepipe · 02-07-2021 2:59pm

Possibly because those who are stuck in Defence want to be seen as achievers and wanted to be posted out to a "better" Department,so they will do their level best to save a few bob and be seen as good team players....

Larbre34 · 02-07-2021 6:01pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

Possibly because those who are stuck in Defence want to be seen as achievers and wanted to be posted out to a "better" Department,so they will do their level best to save a few bob and be seen as good team players....

But that's my point. Nobody in the upper Civil Service or at Cabinet will see them as that.

Handing back budget is a cardinal sin, it doesn't make you a team player in any way.

Like any Department, DoD will have a multi-year work plan, showing what projects will be progressed and what current expenditure will be forecast as, according to headcount, servicing of assets etc.

If you're handing back budget, it means you're not competent enough to generate the activity that you yourself forecast, to consume the budget.

Admittedly, the manpower issue and Covid impact on delivery of capital items probably figure among the reasons, but DoD have a long history of this, so I give them little leeway for that.

Dohvolle · 02-07-2021 8:20pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

But that's my point. Nobody in the upper Civil Service or at Cabinet will see them as that.

Handing back budget is a cardinal sin, it doesn't make you a team player in any way.

Like any Department, DoD will have a multi-year work plan, showing what projects will be progressed and what current expenditure will be forecast as, according to headcount, servicing of assets etc.

If you're handing back budget, it means you're not competent enough to generate the activity that you yourself forecast, to consume the budget.

Admittedly, the manpower issue and Covid impact on delivery of capital items probably figure among the reasons, but DoD have a long history of this, so I give them little leeway for that.

New sec gen took over after the term of the latest report. Will be interesting to see if the underspend continues. We'll know this time next year.

sparky42 · 02-07-2021 8:22pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

New sec gen took over after the term of the latest report. Will be interesting to see if the underspend continues. We'll know this time next year.

From that article the department of public expenditure is already flagging DOD as an issue. It is still happening right now.

roadmaster · 02-07-2021 8:23pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

New sec gen took over after the term of the latest report. Will be interesting to see if the underspend continues. We'll know this time next year.

Weather or not its just for show i am not sure but she seams to be getting out and about at casement and on ships so this has to be an improvement on the lasr fella but as you say time will tell

Dohvolle · 02-07-2021 9:01pm

Any version of article not behind paywall?

sparky42 · 02-07-2021 9:23pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Any version of article not behind paywall?

Some of it:

The Department of Housing had the largest underspend of all Government departments at the end of May, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has said.
It was one of a number of departments that so far this year has failed to reach spending targets – a feature, which in the case of the Department of Housing, was ascribed largely to the halt in construction due to the Covid-19 lockdown.
Department of Public Expenditure principal officer Kevin Meaney said in the first five months of the year “there was underspend in key departments”.
He said the “biggest overall amounts” would have involved the transport and housing, but that “in percentage terms, we are probably looking at the departments of defence and further and higher education”.

Mr Meaney was addressing the Oireachtas committee on Budgetary Oversight where he told politicians it was a bit early in the year to calculate the annual underspend of the departments.
He said it was perhaps understandable that there should be underspends, particularly in the department of housing, as construction and other activity would have been hit by the lockdown.
Figures for the half year to June would be available by next week, he said, and most of the departments had plans to catch up on spending in the second half of the year.

I can understand housing, and even to a degree Higher education, but given all the issues in defence and their usage I support of the health service why are they underspending?

marketty · 02-07-2021 10:00pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Some of it:

I can understand housing, and even to a degree Higher education, but given all the issues in defence and their usage I support of the health service why are they underspending?

I would suggest it's because the issues in defence don't relate to equipment purchases or operational expenditure, but centre around pay and pensions. The FEMPI/Croke Park/Haddington Rd etc approach over the past decade has seen Government treat public sector employees as one homogeneous mass when it comes to pay and pensions, except when they didn't do that and gave special deals to various sectors who have strong trade unions and can cause serious headaches for government by striking. The Defence Forces got all the pay cuts/freezes etc that the rest of the public sector got but do not have the right to strike, and quite honestly even if they did most people wouldn't care. The pay restoration they have seen has amounted to several rounds of 'a fiver a week', that is to say 0.5% here, 1% there and so on. Add to that the endless cycle of reviews, reports, surveys, pay commissions etc that ultimately amount to feck all in the pay packet, a disastrously long run under a completely incompetent and disinterested Junior Minister (Kehoe) and 'Leaders' that are more interested in business speak waffle, rainbows and solar panels than troops welfare and you have a recipe for a very unattractive organisation to stay in. The DF will always attract young men and women in because by its very nature it is 'a life less ordinary', but after a few years when the reality of paying rent, getting a mortgage, raising children etc hits it is seriously struggling to retain the best and brightest of those recruits.

The reality is that you would be looking at, I would reckon, a 20-30% hike in take home pay required across a lot of ranks/tech grades in the DF to slow the churn. This sounds like a lot but if you could put a figure on the cost of constantly trying to plug experience gaps with new staff off the street (hint: you can't) and paying pensions to guys retiring early that could give the organisation another 10-15 years, it wouldn't be bad value. The reason for the underspend is therefore, imo, the refusal of DoD, under direction of DPER of course, to not even consider significant pay hikes because of knock on demands from other areas of the PS.

ancientmariner · 31-05-2022 9:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058189671/this-is-why

The Irish Times article is written for colour and to spread some "cause" around State and EU agencies. I joined the NS in 1961 when there was NO Surveillance Units scanning offshore areas and patrols were carried out by a sole Corvette. The Air Corps was the Official SAR Agency and the NS provided the MRCC and its co-ordination with the CRSS.

When we entered the EU and the EEZ came into being, there was action to expand the Navy to 4 ships, EU funded, and to provide the AC with an MPA function and a Maritime On-board function. In addition the Maritime Surveillance Unit for transponder tracking was also formed. Most people saw this as a reinforcement of Fishery Protection and a restriction on drug and other illegal actions in the EEZ. Defence down the barrels of weapons was an after thought, and newer ships were brought on with minimised crewing and NO flight decks.

Right now the NS have at least 5 ships that can patrol the EEZ , of those the question is how many should be in a FP unit and how many for Defence of the State. Defence is the matter under consideration but I would say that the biggest contributor to Seamanship backbone of the Navy, including deploying boats at sea, is in fact FP. This prowess was well demonstrated in our Mediterranean Days.

ancientmariner · 31-05-2022 12:30pm

As a matter of interest the RN Fishery Protection Squadron was one of great antiquity and had illustrious officers such as Nelson as a serving member. In latter years it became Fishery protection Squadron and Minesweeping Flotilla. It always had a Captain Navy in Command. In 2020 it was designated Overseas Patrol Squadron and composes 8 newish ships all assigned far and wide from Falklands to Caribbean and possibly Mediterranean and Far East. All with Command systems, FCS, Flight decks, Drones, and a range of adaptability. All vessels of latest batch have Commanders in Command. They are regarded as key naval units in remote or sensitive areas.

ancientmariner · 01-06-2022 8:27am

As regards the EU fishery Patrol. the concept has been around a long time. We have had secunded Iris It's a political response by the EUh Naval officers on EU fishery patrols many years ago. A former Flag officer commanded an Irish Naval ship on EU Fishery Patrol off the Newfound Land Banks based in St. Johns Newfoundland. It is a political response by the EU to requests for help by others including fishermen.

ancientmariner · 01-06-2022 2:53pm

Sorry for misprint. As regards the EU Fishery Patrols, the concept has been around a long time. We have had secunded Irish Naval officers on EU fishery patrols many years ago. A former Flag Officer commanded an Irish Naval ship, on EU Fishery Patrol off the Newfoundland Great Banks and was based in St. Johns Newfoundland. The current patrols are a political response by the EU to requests for help by others including fishermen.

This is why...

Comments