Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72

Thread: Is Skewed Defence Policy Coming Home To Roost?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mostly in Europe
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Is Skewed Defence Policy Coming Home To Roost?

    Just heard from good sources that the Naval Service Vessel L.E. Aoife which has been ploughing the stormy waters around our coasts since 1979 is knackered. Essentially she is beyond what might be deemed the economic repair stage.

    There are three vessels of this class and of this vintage in about the same condition.

    Of the five remaining vessels, one can project that three of those will be in a similar condition when they are due to be retired in 2014.

    Meanwhile two more ships are due on stream.

    In 2014 there will be only four Naval Vessels patroling the coasts and EEZ out to 200 nautical miles.

    A situation has been allowed to occur whereby expensive and new armoured personnel carriers are being withdrawn from overseas due to the army to all intents and purposes being redundant since the withdrawal from Chad.

    (No offence meant to the Army, who do a good job when deployed.)

    Why has money been diverted to buying Army kit which isn't needed for overseas when we have a coastline & EEZ which needs to be monitored 24/7/365?

    CAG should be looking at this and the Secretary of DOD should be in front of a Dail committee explaining how the DOD got it so wrong.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member The Field Marshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Imperial Throne
    Posts
    44,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by absconded View Post
    Just heard from good sources that the Naval Service Vessel L.E. Aoife which has been ploughing the stormy waters around our coasts since 1979 is knackered. Essentially she is beyond what might be deemed the economic repair stage.

    There are three vessels of this class and of this vintage in about the same condition.

    Of the five remaining vessels, one can project that three of those will be in a similar condition when they are due to be retired in 2014.

    Meanwhile two more ships are due on stream.

    In 2014 there will be only four Naval Vessels patroling the coasts and EEZ out to 200 nautical miles.
    So.
    Are you expecting an invasion?
    Quote Originally Posted by absconded View Post
    A situation has been allowed to occur whereby expensive and new armoured personnel carriers are being withdrawn from overseas due to the army to all intents and purposes being redundant since the withdrawal from Chad.

    (No offence meant to the Army, who do a good job when deployed.)
    Redundant?
    The only thing thats redundant is absconded,s above statement.

    So kind of absconded to apologize to the army.
    When they get up off the floor having laughed themselves silly , Im sure they will feel better.

    Quote Originally Posted by absconded View Post
    Why has money been diverted to buying Army kit which isn't needed for overseas when we have a coastline & EEZ which needs to be monitored 24/7/365?
    The kit was needed for overseas.
    The coastline is being monitored adequately.

    Abscondeds paranoid assertion that the coastline needs to be monitored full time,aside from being impossible, is also unneccessary.
    Ireland is not at war.

    No country in the world behaves like that in relation to its coastline during peacetime.




    Quote Originally Posted by absconded View Post
    CAG should be looking at this and the Secretary of DOD should be in front of a Dail committee explaining how the DOD got it so wrong.
    Absconded sounds like some disgruntled naval type , jealous of the army & with a misguided sense of the navy,s importance.

    His/her concerns re naval matters I advise be directed at the EU which is the real source of all his/her woes by insisting on mad fishing restrictions signed up to by spineless Irish gobshyte politicians.

    If the EU want these silly fishing restrictions policed then the EU can pay for the necessary naval patrol ships.


    Get real absconded and get some medical help for your paranoid fear of imminent invasion.
    Last edited by The Field Marshal; 23rd September 2010 at 08:01 PM.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Mostly in Europe
    Posts
    398
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Field Marshal clearly has no maritime knowledge or awareness. Defence in most countries is dedicated to protecting and monitoring strategic interests. It isn't unfair to say that 200 APC's parked in the DFTC are expensive ornaments. Even when patrolling Chad and Liberia they had little to add to protecting and monitoring vital national interests. I'm not saying that the Army should never have had them, or should never have them in the future. What I am pointing out if you had taken the time to read my post is that they are now surplus to requirements and maritime patrolling which needs to be done from an economic interest as well as a territorial interest perspective cannot be done. It's hard for you to argue that in the long run those armoured personnel carriers were not needed and probably should have been leased and returned. If overseas missions were important to Irelands interests we would still be undertaking them and we're not. Meanwhile Naval patrolling continues day in day out. Simples!

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aontas Sóvéideach na hÉireann
    Posts
    13,343
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Get rid of the free state army and navy - just a waste of money.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Fantasia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    planet earth
    Posts
    920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    and the new ships are all made in HM shipyards.. replete with the latest tracking, listening and spy gear out the ying-yang throughout..

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cael View Post
    Get rid of the free state army and navy - just a waste of money.
    We got rid of the free state army in 1938. The Navy didnt exist until well after the free state was history.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fantasia View Post
    and the new ships are all made in HM shipyards.. replete with the latest tracking, listening and spy gear out the ying-yang throughout..
    Where would you suggest they be built?

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member former wesleyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,462
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cael View Post
    Get rid of the free state army and navy - just a waste of money.
    Got a list handy -of nations who've done this ?

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member The Field Marshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Imperial Throne
    Posts
    44,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by absconded View Post
    Field Marshal clearly has no maritime knowledge or awareness. Defence in most countries is dedicated to protecting and monitoring strategic interests. It isn't unfair to say that 200 APC's parked in the DFTC are expensive ornaments. Even when patrolling Chad and Liberia they had little to add to protecting and monitoring vital national interests. I'm not saying that the Army should never have had them, or should never have them in the future. What I am pointing out if you had taken the time to read my post is that they are now surplus to requirements and maritime patrolling which needs to be done from an economic interest as well as a territorial interest perspective cannot be done. It's hard for you to argue that in the long run those armoured personnel carriers were not needed and probably should have been leased and returned. If overseas missions were important to Irelands interests we would still be undertaking them and we're not. Meanwhile Naval patrolling continues day in day out. Simples!
    Absconded promotes the boo hoo hoo arguement based on begrudgery that the army got something at the expense of the navy

    The Irish navy has always been underfunded and that is not the armys fault.

    A rant that Ireland is in imminent danger of some seaborne invasion threat does not help abscondeds case either.

    I am all for a strong Irish defence capability on land sea and air but it must be based on balanced practical considerations and not on the fearmongering silly paranoia peddled by absconded who is pursuing a single & narrow navy agenda.

    Enforcement of EU fishery policy is the main work of the Irish navy and this has not endeared that service to the public at large.

    It has nothing to do with Ireland strategic defenses as such and is mere window dressing.

    Let the EU pay in full for this now outdated policy and the Irish will gladly do the work



    There are now many scientific studies proving that the fishing quota restrictions enforced by the Irish navy are hopelessly out of date and are leading to serious economic loss to the country.

    The other real issue is the utter failure of successive Irish govts to promote a successful and thriving marine fishing industry on the island but thats another story


    ....

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    2,528
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by absconded View Post
    Just heard from good sources that the Naval Service Vessel L.E. Aoife which has been ploughing the stormy waters around our coasts since 1979 is knackered. Essentially she is beyond what might be deemed the economic repair stage.

    There are three vessels of this class and of this vintage in about the same condition.

    Of the five remaining vessels, one can project that three of those will be in a similar condition when they are due to be retired in 2014.

    Meanwhile two more ships are due on stream.

    In 2014 there will be only four Naval Vessels patroling the coasts and EEZ out to 200 nautical miles.

    A situation has been allowed to occur whereby expensive and new armoured personnel carriers are being withdrawn from overseas due to the army to all intents and purposes being redundant since the withdrawal from Chad.

    (No offence meant to the Army, who do a good job when deployed.)

    Why has money been diverted to buying Army kit which isn't needed for overseas when we have a coastline & EEZ which needs to be monitored 24/7/365?

    CAG should be looking at this and the Secretary of DOD should be in front of a Dail committee explaining how the DOD got it so wrong.
    Your projection would be true only if the DoD decided to do no more than buy the 2 announced ships. However this is not the case. The 2 ordered have an option for a third(you already know this). Once the building of OPV1 and 2 commence, the NS will finalise the next stage in the tendering for the larger EPV, which will be a direct replacement for Eithne. There is also an option for a second EPV.

    I was on Aoife recently and she is in top condition for a thirty year old ship, however the same cannot be said of Emer, the eldest ship in the flotilla. Perhaps our source confused the names? In fact, it is hoped to retain Aoife in service long after emer and Aisling retire. Emer is knackered, and Aisling experienced a major fire early in her life which caused damage which while not enough to cause a loss, did weaken some structural areas, which are only now becoming problematic with age.

    The army need the equipment as much as the Navy do, but our country can't afford to buy everything everyone wants in one go. The procurement for defence has been quite progressive, and has provided armoured vehicles for the army, which have made their overseas operations far safer than in the past. In lebanon, the APCs we had were unsuitable, and we had to borrow armoured personell carriers from finland. Similarly, the armoured cars were only good for one shot against the Israeli war machine.

    Just because we have no overseas army mission today does not mean we won't have one tomorroe. Should we sell the equipment, and buy it back next time we are asked to go overseas?

    The real question the CAG should be asking is why was so much of the defence vote for equipment purchases returned unspent.

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •