• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Is Skewed Defence Policy Coming Home To Roost?


absconded

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
398
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A situation has been allowed to occur whereby expensive and new armoured personnel carriers are being withdrawn from overseas due to the army to all intents and purposes being redundant since the withdrawal from Chad.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.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
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?
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 :rolleyes:to apologize to the army.
When they get up off the floor having laughed themselves silly , Im sure they will feel better.

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 :rolleyes: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.




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. :rolleyes:

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:rolleyes: and get some medical help for your paranoid fear of imminent invasion.
 
Last edited:

absconded

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
398
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!
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
Get rid of the free state army and navy - just a waste of money.
 

Fantasia

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
920
and the new ships are all made in HM shipyards.. replete with the latest tracking, listening and spy gear out the ying-yang throughout..
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,811
Get rid of the free state army and navy - just a waste of money.
Got a list handy -of nations who've done this ?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
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:rolleyes:

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


....
 

Dohville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
2,528
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.
 

absconded

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
398
and the new ships are all made in HM shipyards.. replete with the latest tracking, listening and spy gear out the ying-yang throughout..
To a high specification I'm sure. And they need to be.
They have to last 30 years, or in the case of the current wrecks they'll need to last even longer due to insufficient planning by Cabinet and DOD.

On one hand DOD money is being spent buying and maintaining APCs which are not actually needed on an Island this size and on the other Naval ships which actually are needed for coastguard type duties are being run into the ground.

Is the DOD ever planning to send troops overseas again? What's the value in sending troops overseas? Is it just a vanity project by a random politician decided over pints at a diplomatic pissup?

How much has been squandered on overseas deployments when national interests regarding defence were much closer to home. In our back yard out to 200 nautical miles.

Not for an instant denigrating the Army who actually do a fine job at what they are sent to do. The Irish Army is professional in every sense and I know foreign Officers who have served with Irish troops that would all agree.

My question regarding defence policy is directed at people at a much higher level than the Chief Of Staff of the DF.

Why was money squandered on overseas, what did it achieve for Ireland and why can we not now patrol our own waters and EEZ effectively due to lack of seaworthy vessels. What was the decision making process there?

Anyone got any ideas?
 

absconded

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
398
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.
Nope, the Aoife is in for repairs if they'll be possible. She's A/S NB and with severe mechanical problems. She's about to be towed to Rushbrooke DY in a "deadship" condition. She might look good on the outside, and that's a credit to the Capt & Crew. But she might be beyond repair is what I've heard. Looks like the "notional period" isn't so notional after all.

I wouldn't hold out any hope for the EPV in the current climate or the optional third. Not without drastic impact on the army.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,811

absconded

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
398
Smacks of too polite to say what he really thinks.:D
As you know FW I have the highest regard for the Army and I've had close professional contact with many soldiers at all levels. So I wasn't bothered about replying to the almost armchair soldier in his uncivil post earlier.
The real issue is yet again a lack of Civil Service and Cabinet logic as demonstrated by where they have allocated money in the Defence Vote over the last 10 years.
Now the state doesn't have the money to send troops overseas so that won't happen for a while to come. Ironically though it's got all the hardware it needs for the job it isn't actually doing, but doesn't have the hardware required for what it is doing. You see what I'm getting at? :lol:
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,570
So.
Are you expecting an invasion?


Redundant?
The only thing thats redundant is absconded,s above statement.

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


The kit was needed for overseas.
The coastline is being monitored adequately.

Abscondeds :rolleyes: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.






Absconded sounds like some disgruntled naval type , jealous of the army & with a misguided sense of the navy,s importance. :rolleyes:

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:rolleyes: and get some medical help for your paranoid fear of imminent invasion.
Nothing to do with invasion, all to do with drug-runners, gun-runners, OUR OWN fishing stocks and the need to protect, patrol, and control access to our ports under the terms of the Geneva Convention as we are a neutral state. Otherwise the nearest belligerent nation is entitled to secure our ports for fear that an enemy might use them.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
We got rid of the free state army in 1938. The Navy didnt exist until well after the free state was history.
The 26 county lacky statlet was and is the free state - nothing more.
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,570
The 26 county lacky statlet was and is the free state - nothing more.
Sad little boy- he's missed out on a lot of recent happenings and events, such as the recent Referendum where we amended our Constitution to make The Good Friday Agreement effective in this State and give recognition to the Six Counties as a legal entity separate to Éire.

To whom are we supposed to be lackeys?
 
Top