The Mess - Military Forum Off Topic Thread!

tac foley

helimachoptor wrote: »

go to picture 6, can anyone explain why he's there?
http://www.independent.ie/photos/irish-defence-forces-troops-send-christmas-wishes-home-from-syria-29855812.html

Cook?

Whatever he is doing there, G*d bless him and all the Irish lads and bring them safe home.

tac

goldie fish

helimachoptor wrote: »

go to picture 6, can anyone explain why he's there?
http://www.independent.ie/photos/irish-defence-forces-troops-send-christmas-wishes-home-from-syria-29855812.html

Why wouldn't he be? He is a member of the Irish Defence forces.

Frosty McSnowballs

NS troops also deploy overseas.

Army, Naval Service and Air Corps troops are all eligible to volunteer, be selected and deploy overseas.

helimachoptor

goldie fish wrote: »

Why wouldn't he be? He is a member of the Irish Defence forces.

Didnt realise the Navy deployed on personnel on shore

tac foley

helimachoptor wrote: »

Didnt realise the Navy deployed on personnel on shore

He could be a medic, or a naval clerk [called writers], radio operator - there are many shore jobs in the naval service. Just like all soldiers are not infantry, so not all sailors sail.

tac

goldie fish

helimachoptor wrote: »

Didnt realise the Navy deployed on personnel on shore

The Navy consists of a fleet of 7 ships, each with a crew with an average of 50 people each. The Navy itself consists of over 1000 people. What do you think the others do when not at sea?

helimachoptor

goldie fish wrote: »

The Navy consists of a fleet of 7 ships, each with a crew with an average of 50 people each. The Navy itself consists of over 1000 people. What do you think the others do when not at sea?

I didnt believe they all worked on ships, i mean there is a naval base :pac:

Just didnt realise Navy personnel would be deployed with the Army

Frosty McSnowballs

helimachoptor wrote: »

I didnt believe they all worked on ships, i mean there is a naval base :pac:

Just didnt realise Navy personnel would be deployed with the Army

I can see why you were confused. But the DF as a complete entity deploy overseas. There are usually a small number of NS and AC on most missions.

They function as soldiers. There is a lot of training before any deployment, this allows all troops to be refreshed on standard infantry tactics.

Oh, happy christmas

MRnotlob606

thats actually interesting about navy sailors being deployed as soldiers

discus

Yes, as 'soldiers'

goldie fish

Everyone in the defence forces(except Chaplains) are trained as soldiers first.

Larbre34

The naval payroll and pensions section has approximately 650 uniformed staff.

Overheal

Tragic accident last week: doctors without borders facility accidentally targeted in AC-130 strike. 22 dead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/05/afghan-forces-requested-airstrike-that-hit-hospital-in-kunduz/

Sounds like fog of war issues.

tac foley

It would seem from the Washington spokesman this morning that the location was fingered by those paragons of military efficiency, the Afghan National Army.

'Trust, but verify' - which is why the UK's military forces in 'stan rarely made a mistake, but our pals make loads of 'em.

Just like GW1.

And GW2.

There was a story going around in WW2 after the invasion in June of '44.

'If the British were bombing, then the Germans kept their heads down.

If the Germans were bombing, then the British kept their heads down.

If the Americans were bombing, then EVERYBODY kept their heads down.'

tac

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Tragic accident last week: doctors without borders facility accidentally targeted in AC-130 strike. 22 dead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/05/afghan-forces-requested-airstrike-that-hit-hospital-in-kunduz/

Sounds like fog of war issues.

Probably, most likely Taliban engaged forces in the vicinity and retreated to buildings nearby, if not the actual building themselves. So tired of that **** hole, need to cut ties and let them get back to their biblical era lifestyles.

Manic Moran

Apparently the MSF/DWB folks failed to mark their hospital with red crosses/crescents/diamonds. It was, apparently, marked with the MSF flag.

Flag.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/9/9/i/5/0/1/o/DoctorsBordersFlag.jpg

Marked hospital. http://www.med-dept.com/images/identification_images/hosp_flag.gif

discus

Such an oversight.

Bloodwing

I wasn't too sure where to post this but this seems like the best spot. I just wanted to say thanks to all the members of the defence forces who assisted in today's state funeral. From the MP's to transport to the lads who put on refreshments and all others. It was very much noticed and appreciated. Hopefully some of the members present will see this and pass it on. Thank you.

BoJack Horseman

Any military tech nerdists will have looked at the LCS programme in the US Navy with bemusement.

$360m unit priced fast patrol vessels, armed less than an Irish Navy vessel & armoured enough to barely survive an impact with a porpoise.
So, expensive & all but useless.

The US state department yesterday announced the sale of 4 'freedom class' LCS vessels to Saudi Arabia for deployment in the Gulf.

2 things that stick out on this is the cost of the deal & what the ships will come packed with.... far & above in capabilities that US navy personnel will be serving with...

were it not for the staggering price tag, these wouldn't be half bad as light frigates.... shame US naval personnel will just have a 57m gun to face down China with instead!

details are here: http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-multi-mission-surface-combatant-mmsc-ships

What it will be packing:
- A 76mm gun (upgraded from the standard 57mm)
- 16 vls cells
- Full of ESSM surface-to-air missiles
- 8 x Harpoon AShms
- 20mm RWS cannon
- 10 x .50cal guns per boat
- a SeaRam CIWS
- Mk 32 Torpedo Tubes

As well as a wide variety of top-notch surveilance, radar, fire control IFF, passive & active defense systems.
Plus all the usual support stuff & probably a comprehensive warranty!
So, spec wise.... pretty good.
But that $4bn - $11bn price tag doesn't stretch very far.

Manic Moran

I think you are being very unfair to the LCSs. They are very capable ships at their designed role. I took a wander around the complementary Independence class LCS-4 last week, and was very impressed. Your objection reminds me of the reception that Congress gave to the Spruances. "You're telling us that at hundreds of thousands of dollars, and nearly 8,000 tons per ship, this thing has got just two guns, an anti-submarine rocket launcher, and a self defense missile system!?" Such objections ignore many of the capabilities and built-in opportunities which were realized over the following few years to make very dangerous oceanic vessels.

When I visited, Coronado had the ASuW module fitted. Observations:

1: The "mission bay" is cavernous, and could still carry a company's worth of MOWAGs/LAVs loaded by the side ramp addition to the two large RIBs through the back. I was astounded at the amount of empty space available, even with a few 20' containers aboard

2, she was't exactly under armed, with the 57mm, two 30mm, the SeaRAM point defense launcher, and space reserved for the Hellfire VLS.

3. I saw no particular issues glaring at me about survivability. No warship today is particularly armored, relying on not getting hit in the first place. The aluminum superstructure surprised me, but the USN apparently also took incidents like Belknap and Sheffield to heart: the interior was so coated with fire countermeasures it looked like an Apollo lander.

4. I'm not a massive fan of the split control centers for the weapons, but the officer I spoke with said it worked well enough in practice.

5. Largest flight deck outside of an assault ship. With hangar space.

Bear in mind that the Saudis and U.S. Have different missions in mind. The Saudis wanted frigates, or at least very competent corvettes. The USN wanted multi-role ships to operate in the close inshore environment. Note that the USN is currently looking at a Frigate version of LCS which uses a lot of that spare capacity for a heavier, permanent weapons load out. LCS is not under armed because the U.S. Couldn't afford it, it's armed to best do the jobs the USN needs it to do.

BoJack Horseman

Manic Moran wrote: »

They are very capable ships at their designed role.

Which I assume is simply a fault of design then!
The whole 'mission package' concept seems like an utter failure thus far.
It either doesn't work, (mine clearing) or even more incompetently, weighs too much (sonar package).... quite incredible really.

- Need to track down some mines?
'No problem, let me get back to San Diego for a couple of weeks to swap the mine-clearing package in.... be a jiffy!'
- Need to engage an enemy vessel?
No problem! I just need to head back to port for another couple of weeks, swap on 2 x 30mm guns & pray that the enemy isn't shooting from more than a handful of miles away & is still hanging around at all!
(remembering that the hellfire missiles are a much criticized afterthought)

Note that the USN is currently looking at a Frigate version of LCS which uses a lot of that spare capacity for a heavier, permanent weapons load out.

Only after it dawned on the brass that their glorified patrol boat was to be (after the Arleigh Burkes) the mainstay of the navy! (50+ vessels) & was hopelessly outmatched by anything any peer (or near-peer) navy was building.
So, yet more time & money wasted on what was very obvious from the get-go.

And still retaining the stupid (political) decision to split the class across 2 very different ship designs.

LCS is not under armed because the U.S. Couldn't afford it, it's armed to best do the jobs the USN needs it to do.

Thats the thing though.... they aren't doing anything!

America has incredibly signed on for a €360m-a-piece jet boat, which currently cannot peform any of its intended roles better than the Cyclone class or Avenger Class that preceded it.

ASuW package is on a par with our Beckett Class
ASW package that is too heavy to fit on the ship.
MCM package that quote "hasn't met expectations" (ie: doesn't work)
AAW capability so long as the target is only a few miles away.

but, you know..... it makes an impressive wake... perhaps that might scare off the enemy!

Dollar for dollar, personally I'd place the LCS programme as a bigger calamity than the F-35 programme.

AbusesToilets

The LCS is a joke at this point. Under gunned, lacking armor, lacking an organic anti-air capability. The USN needs to convince their paymasters to purchase the variant the Saudis are buying, especially since they are funding the development costs. It would be madness to continue to pursue the current model, but then again this is the same branch that decided that concurrently developing the Ford class carriers at the same time as their catapult system (which doesn't work properly, yet) was a good idea.

discus

I left the BA 2 months ago and now the world has gone to ****. Terrorists were waiting for me to leave I bet

Whats the bet's on boots on the ground in an African or Middle Eastern state by end-of-play 2015?

BoJack Horseman

discus wrote: »

Whats the bet's on boots on the ground in an African or Middle Eastern state by end-of-play 2015?

There are boots on many a ground across Africa & the ME?

discus

None of them are line units, I'm talking about new standard deployments of a division or army by european nations.

BoJack Horseman

discus wrote: »

None of them are line units, I'm talking about new standard deployments of a division or army by european nations.

France has around 10,000 deployed to Africa alone.... mostly regular service personnel.

discus

Ok I'll just say "ISAFesque longterm multinational operation"

BoJack Horseman

discus wrote: »

Ok I'll just say "ISAFesque longterm multinational operation"

In Syria, on such a scale?

possible, but not probable.

BoJack Horseman

So, 'Call me Dave' will announce some sort of spending review for the UK armed forces tomorrow....

some info is here.

The headline is 2 x "strike brigades".

Now, is this new??
I thought the UK (Like Russia & the US) was moving away from divisions to a brigade based force structure anyway?

Is this just re-announcing existing plans?

AbusesToilets

Maybe he means in total