Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Seems they can find the money when they have to...
"THE Irish Army's peacekeeping mission in Chad is set to cost the State €77m this year -- or almost €200,000 per soldier -- making it the most expensive in the nation's history....."
"THE Irish Army's peacekeeping mission in Chad is set to cost the State €77m this year -- or almost €200,000 per soldier -- making it the most expensive in the nation's history....."
Sod the indo. 77m is what it takes to do it at decently.
Seems they can find the money when they have to...
"THE Irish Army's peacekeeping mission in Chad is set to cost the State €77m this year -- or almost €200,000 per soldier -- making it the most expensive in the nation's history....."
(today's Indo)
...
I'm at a loss here.
Are you carrington in disguise?
They obtained the bare amount necessary to fund this operation, most probably after a long drawn out battle with the Department of Finance. If more money had been easily forthcoming of course the air route would have been taken. But it obviously wasn't.
The Defence Forces are operating on a shoestring budget as they have been since the foundation of this state and they're doing the best they can with such meager resources.
If you have a problem with the method of transportation, you'd best take it up with the people who pull the purse strings rather than the military.
They obtained the bare amount necessary to fund this operation, most probably after a long drawn out battle with the Department of Finance. If more money had been easily forthcoming of course the air route would have been taken. But it obviously wasn't.
The Defence Forces are operating on a shoestring budget as they have been since the foundation of this state and they're doing the best they can with such meager resources.
If you have a problem with the method of transportation, you'd best take it up with the people who pull the purse strings rather than the military.
Well if it takes the cost of a batch of E-Voting machines to do some good in Chad then I'll gladly hand over my tax take this week. The Indo; always good for a bit of perspective. Cough Cough
"We do not govern to rule, we govern to serve" Gen. Michael Collins
€77m is a bargain, given the scale of what's involved.
Were a different method of overland transportation been pursued, things would have gotten very expensive. The two options that spring to mind are to hire an international contractor, such as KBR or Halliburton, to do the moving and their own perimeter/convoy security. Those boys don't come cheap, particularly when their services are in such demand in other areas and there would undoubtedly be political difficulties associated with using contractors like this.
The other option would be to purchase a dedicated all terrain transport fleet for the DF, with 6x6 (or 8x8) tractor units and a mix of low loaders/flatbed trailers (can only assume the DROPS could self deploy). Say (very conservatively) €25m for the lot, including procurement costs*.
Again, the latter would be ideal but it ain't going to happen; when you're doing it on a very tight budget, this is what you get.
*For example, MAN sold 14 HTT (tank transporters) to Australia in 2005 for $16m AUS, and while we wouldn't need anything that heavy - it wouldn't that far off - TGA 41.410 Tractor units would be about right. Or the Scania equivelants. Or theres Kamaz. Or Oshkosh.
Hey, for starters, the article from the Indo was reproduced in the News section on this forum - that's where I saw it. Second, the air route was used to deploy the Rangers - remember the pics of the Antonovs loading the Fords? - so it can be done. Third, there was a lot of bitching earlier on this thread about the damage to vehicles that had been transported by sea and land. So it seems reasonable to ask: would it have been better - faster, safer - to have deployed the whole force using the air route? Maybe some logs expert can do the numbers and say yay or nay?
And it's too easy to always blame the Finance people. They're not the military logistics experts. Bertie committed Ireland to the Chad operation, so Finance had to come up with the money.
Hey, for starters, the article from the Indo was reproduced in the News section on this forum - that's where I saw it. Second, the air route was used to deploy the Rangers - remember the pics of the Antonovs loading the Fords? - so it can be done. Third, there was a lot of bitching earlier on this thread about the damage to vehicles that had been transported by sea and land. So it seems reasonable to ask: would it have been better - faster, safer - to have deployed the whole force using the air route? Maybe some logs expert can do the numbers and say yay or nay?
And it's too easy to always blame the Finance people. They're not the military logistics experts. Bertie committed Ireland to the Chad operation, so Finance had to come up with the money.
This is a discussion forum, right?
This is beyond tiresome at this point.
The Rangers had a relatively small amount of equipment that needed to be transported, this has already been explained to you. It would have been far more expensive to transport the equipment for 350 men, compared to the 50-ish members of the ARW. This should be obvious.
No-one here has said that air transportation would have been more dangerous, slower, or impossible compared to transporting it by sea & land.
Given the option of sending everything by air, everyone would take it.
But, and here's the but, it would be more expensive.
Here's roughly how I imagine the Department of Finance would have responded to a submission for further funding regarding this mission, and possibly did:
"Ok, we'll provide more money for air transport... but say goodbye to the (insert LTAV/XYZ contract) for another few years."
You seem to be of the impression that the money for this mission came from a source which had endlessly deep pockets.
Well if that's the case, can you explain why the troops are there in overly heavy uniforms? Or why the cheapest instead of best boot for the mission was purchased? We're talking basic equipment here, yet the troops on the ground don't even have that.
Here's what happened, the Defence Forces made a submission, they were given a sum of money and told to work within those financial constraints.
Yes, this counts as a bite, but now I'm done feeding the troll.
There's a question you should be asking though.
Given the reality that they would be using substandard contractors, themselves using substandard equipment, over thousand of miles of glorified dirt tracks - should the military have said; y'know what? Stuff it. We're not risking the men or equipment. We'll send a smaller force by air instead. Yes we'll lose face but at least we'll be reasonably certain things will arrive in one piece.
They took a risk, but I'm nowhere near qualified enough to make a judgement call on it.
I'm just glad the guys transporting the stuff didnt decide en masse to park everything in the middle of nowhere demanding more money.
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 27 May 18:25 EDT (14:25 GMT)
Senior Pentagon officials have begun high-level talks about the proper mix of military aircraft U.S. Africa Command will need to meet its emerging logistics and personnel transport requirements, according to the fledgling organization's deputy commander.
The assessment of AFRICOM's air transport needs by its deputy commander, Vice Adm. Robert Moeller, comes as command, Pentagon and Bush administration officials continue a months-long global effort to explain their aims for the organization, while fending off critics who remain highly skeptical of a greater U.S. military presence on the continent.
Determining "the right mix" of aircraft that will move officials and other personnel, as well as troops and equipment, is AFRICOM's highest acquisition priority, said Moeller during a May 27 presentation at the Brookings Institution, Washington.
AFRICOM, once it is fully operating across the vast continent, "will need a whole lot of air support," Moeller said.
Internal Pentagon discussions, he said, about how many - and what kind of - air transports will be needed should "begin to come to fruition over the next several years."
Pressed by reporters after his presentation, he declined to offer additional details on the kinds of airlifters the command might seek to purchase or permanently assign to the new command.
But Moeller hinted the command's biggest challenge is recruiting personnel to fill civilian posts.
The approach used to organize the command is viewed by many U.S. defense thinkers as a test case that could change how the American government does business around the globe. AFRICOM features two deputy commanders: Moeller and a senior State Department official who oversees its political and civilian activities. It also features many more posts for civilian federal employees than other U.S. commands.
Uniformed command officials have had some problems learning how to advertise vacancies, and recruit and hire civilians within the personnel systems used by other U.S. federal agencies. Had Moeller and other AFRICOM planers leaned a bit more on the civilian personnel management expertise within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, "we'd probably be ahead of where we are right now," he said.
Despite those challenges, Moeller said he expects to meet the administration's goal of having a fully functioning command by Oct. 1.
That means it will assume responsibility for a continent that previously was divided among three U.S. military regional outfits: Central, European and Pacific commands. Under the existing framework, CENTCOM oversaw American activities in Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya; the European organization was in charge of managing things across the remainder of the continent, with PACOM possessing responsibility over Madagascar, the Seychelles and the part of the Indian Ocean just off the East African coast.
The new outfit will have substantially more than a military mission, Moeller said. Administration and Pentagon officials continue to stress AFRICOM officials will primarily work on diplomatic, developmental, economic and security projects, a sentiment Moeller stressed as well. To that end, they emphasize its deputy commander for civil-military activities as well as the AFRICOM commander's top foreign policy adviser both will be State Department officials.
The United States has a number of strategic reasons for devoting an entire regional command to the troubled continent, experts have said in conversations spanning several months.
For Washington, pushing responsible governance, ensuring access to certain natural resources, especially oil, and engaging areas that lack governance and could become staging grounds for terrorists are important issues, these regional experts said. And there's also China, which has strategically stepped up its activities across Africa. Many in Washington see China as America's top peer rival in coming years.
Additionally, several experts agree the Bush administration has done a poor job explaining to African governments exactly what AFRICOM will do.
As Moeller and other American officials continue efforts to explain to critics - and perhaps more importantly, African leaders - what the command is all about, it appears questions about the permanent location of its headquarters will continue for several more years.
Officials have no plans to move AFRICOM's main hub from its current Stuttgart, Germany, location.
"We will remain in Stuttgart," he said, "for the foreseeable future."
Additionally, command officials continue efforts to secure memorandums of agreement with other American federal agencies to spell out how those organizations' personnel will function within the new command.
Once the outfit assumes control of the areas and efforts that have been managed by PACOM, EUCOM and CENTCOM, some changes could occur, he said. Command officials already have started talks with African military officials about which exercises and military-to-military programs they might want expanded, tweaked or canceled.
How many aircraft would be required to move all the vehicles involved, considering how many of them were overheight trucks, heavy APCs not to mention the 20 foot containers, which could weigh up to 18tonnes each.
remember the pics of the Antonovs loading the Fords? -
A Ford is not a MOWAG or DROPS.
And it's too easy to always blame the Finance people. They're not the military logistics experts. Bertie committed Ireland to the Chad operation, so Finance had to come up with the money.
Do a search on the board and see what parts of the DF budget were cut to pay for EUFOR. If EUFOR didn't happen IMO Finance would have insured the DF budget would have suffered further cuts.
Everyone says that more helicopters are needed for Chad, but that the Air Corps can't deploy the AW139s.
But what about a few Cessnas? They're not helicopters, but they still give you a airborne observation platform, for convoy escort, reconnaissance, liaison etc. They can operate from fairly basic airstrips. They're much cheaper and easier to operate and maintain than helis. And they're nearing the end of their operational life anyway, so it wouldn't be a matter of wearing out the brand new toys.
To be fair, you could probably fit them into a C-130 at least two at a time with the wings off.
But even leaving aside the fact that the AC can't deploy overseas and doesn't have the resources to send in the first place (in terms of mechanics, fitters, aircrew etc), would the Cessnas be of any use? Chad is huge, and they're slow and with a poor payload and without proper optics for obs work. What would the Cessnas add?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment