Nordic Battlegroup 2015 Requirements and Specifications

[ropebag]

What do you think will be a realistic contribution?

pulling stuff out of my arse...

certainly i'd say that NS (AC?) participation in the various European/NATO naval missions - the Med, or anti-piracy in the Indian Ocean, (perhaps sovereignty patrols in the Baltic?) would be a good start. if the new 'EUBG-but-not-EUBG' idea gets going then it would probably be much more ad-hoc deployments/contributions than the current rota system, so there might be a greater emphasis on a continual high-readiness capability. i wouldn't be surprised if the new concept was much looser, so instead of picking two countries and working with them like mad for a set period, you might pick half a dozen likely candidates and try and do exercises with them all on a rolling basis.

i'd see Chad as being the high point of Irish commitment to European security, and i'd suggest that, broadly, that will be what the new non-structures will probably look like - just with greater cost sharing.

would the Irish Army be better able to handle, smaller (Coy+), long term deploments, or larger, Bn+ sized but shorter term jobs?

[DeV]

pulling stuff out of my arse...

certainly i'd say that NS (AC?) participation in the various European/NATO naval missions - the Med, or anti-piracy in the Indian Ocean, (perhaps sovereignty patrols in the Baltic?) would be a good start. if the new 'EUBG-but-not-EUBG' idea gets going then it would probably be much more ad-hoc deployments/contributions than the current rota system, so there might be a greater emphasis on a continual high-readiness capability. i wouldn't be surprised if the new concept was much looser, so instead of picking two countries and working with them like mad for a set period, you might pick half a dozen likely candidates and try and do exercises with them all on a rolling basis.

i'd see Chad as being the high point of Irish commitment to European security, and i'd suggest that, broadly, that will be what the new non-structures will probably look like - just with greater cost sharing.

would the Irish Army be better able to handle, smaller (Coy+), long term deploments, or larger, Bn+ sized but shorter term jobs?

It depends on the current deployments. A battalion (plus the 2 infantry groups) should be within capability but won't be. The problem being the smaller pool of specialists.

We need partners on missions to provide for example medical support and lift.

But we no longer have the money to deploy major elements on non-UN missions.

[Flamingo]

Given the NS is probably at the limit with it's current role (which may or may not change when all the new OPV's come on-stream, I don't think we'll see any involvement off the coast of Africa anytime soon, unless some other EU nation takes over the fishery / EU role instead of deploying their own navy to Africa.

If the costs of a deployment to Chad were taken out of the other money's Ireland is wasting, sorry giving in aid to Africa, that might be a potential way of funding it with a zero-cost option (as in effect that's what UN work is). However, there are huge vested interests in the aid industry gravy train which would fight this tooth and nail.

[DeV]

It should be remembered that something like the EUBGs was tried before - SHIRBRIG (Ireland having observer status). Aim being a Brigade sized force on the ground within 15-30 days for a max of 6 months.

It was established in Dec 1996, declared operational in 2000, 1st deployed operationally (helping establish UNMEE) in 2000 (or be it as a Bn+ deployment) and disestablished in 2008. During the period 2000-2008, it did help establish a few other mission's FHQs.

Here are the lessons learnt;

http://www.operationspaix.net/DATA/DOCUMENT/566~v~Shirbrig_lessons_learned_report.pdf

[jack nastyface]

LMFAO. The same guy who was in the drivers seat in that pic rolled a Mowag yesterday!!I wonder was that pic taken before or after

Metacentric height affected due to being top heavy....?