Thanks Thanks:  159
Likes Likes:  510
Dislikes Dislikes:  15
Page 1 of 25 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 608
  1. #1
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like

    White Paper - When is it due to be published?

    Hi all

    I didnt see a specific thread in relaton to this so apologies if one already exists. I've seen in the past that the white paper is due to be published towards the end of this year.

    Well it's October (almost) and still no white paper. Has anyone any ideas of exactly when "Later this year" might be?

    December 24th?

  2. #2
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    2001 - 2010 was the last whitepaper

    were now almost halfway into the next decade and look how much has happened outside the remit of the last whitepaper...

    what really, one asks oneself, does it matter what this fantasy paper says!?

    we have a govt that cant see past the next ten years of defence and a dept of defence that cant move on with its most important publication in a decade. farcical f*king joke.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  3. Likes ODIN, FMP liked this post
  4. #3
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    Hi all

    I didnt see a specific thread in relaton to this so apologies if one already exists. I've seen in the past that the white paper is due to be published towards the end of this year.

    Well it's October (almost) and still no white paper. Has anyone any ideas of exactly when "Later this year" might be?

    December 24th?
    The MfD two weeks ago in the Dail said: "I anticipate that an initial draft White Paper will be submitted to me for my consideration by the end of 2014. I will subsequently bring the draft to Government for their consideration and approval."
    http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...l=1#post417571

  5. #4
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Valley of the Shadow of Death
    Posts
    3,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just because the DoD submit it to the MfD, doesn't mean that it will get published. Shatter held on to the VFM for ages.

  6. #5
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Right that clears it up then. If the minister is "expecting an initial draft" by the end of the year we (the public) will be lucky to see it by the middle of 2015. However as Morpheus says it doesnt really make that much of a difference. Afterall the current structure of the DF bears very little resemblemce to what was outlined in the last white paper. So they could easily publish a white paper in the morning outlining A, B, and C and then simply ignore it and go an do X, W and Z. I really sholdnt let myself get in any way animated by this. :-)

  7. #6
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    The last white paper was drafted when the PIRA were still a recent threat, and 9-11 had not happened. No changes were made to it, i.e policy, during its duration. The longer we wait, the better, in my opinion.

  8. #7
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,860
    Post Thanks / Like
    The DF survived for 79 years without a WP. I think we'll be ok for 5/6 years.

    There was approx 20 years of reviews, change and reorganisation that went into the last WP.

    The WP will set the strategic direction & policy of DoD and the DF. For that reason, Cabinet have to decide what the policy is first.

    Open to correction, but the major changes to the DF (eg 3 to 2 brigades) happened after the WP ran out.

  9. #8
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,860
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/grnPaperE

    See page 12 for the key issues it will address

  10. #9
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Had a quick scan of those key issues it will address but didn't see anything that would indicate any change from the current status quo with the hand wringing over neutrality set to continue forever. You know it wouldnt surprise me if IS were tearing at the door and we were still talking about the triple lock.

    MEANWHILE away from the lofty strategic issues a large number of our soldiers draw FIS and sleep in their cars in order to make ends meet. Absolutely disgraceful and the establishment should hang its head in collective shame.
    Last edited by Pure Hover; 1st October 2014 at 20:13.

  11. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  12. #10
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    agreed but then this surfaces:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...laim-1.1948560
    now either PDFORRA was telling fibs about their being no accomodation just to get headlines, or the DF has just made empty "living in" accomodation free to all?
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  13. #11
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    agreed but then this surfaces:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...laim-1.1948560
    now either PDFORRA was telling fibs about their being no accomodation just to get headlines, or the DF has just made empty "living in" accomodation free to all?
    PDFORRA never said there was no accommodation available, they said troops couldn't afford to travel to and from work. Living In accommodation is available but its certainly not free, the CoS didn't say it was free. It cost €2,500 a year to live in, if they cant afford the fuel home then they certainly cant afford to fork out another €2,500 a year for Living In accommodation.

  14. Likes DeV liked this post
  15. #12
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    PDFORRA never said there was no accommodation available, they said troops couldn't afford to travel to and from work. Living In accommodation is available but its certainly not free, the CoS didn't say it was free. It cost €2,500 a year to live in, if they cant afford the fuel home then they certainly cant afford to fork out another €2,500 a year for Living In accommodation.
    and i agree with ya, thats my point. what he failed to tell the journalists was that whilst accommodation is available, its not free!
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  16. #13
    Private 2*
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK LONDON & OXFORD univs
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like
    MENTIONED IN DAIL ANSWERS [25th Sept 2014]

    Defence Forces Review

    262. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Defence when deliberations on the new white paper on Defence will commence. [36890/14]


    Minister for Defence (Deputy Simon Coveney): The Green Paper on Defence, published in July 2013, set out a range of policy focused questions and initiated a broad public consultation process. This generated 122 written submissions from members of the public and other interested parties. As part of this consultation process, a number of people who made written submissions were invited to meet with civil and military staff of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. Discussions were also held with a range of other Government Departments on cross-cutting policy issues. The views of international organisations were also sought. These discussions are continuing, as required, throughout the White Paper process.


    Working groups comprising civil and military representatives from the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces are considering likely future operational demands and the types of defence capabilities required to meet these demands. This ongoing work will underpin recommendations regarding defence provision for the next decade.


    I anticipate that an initial draft White Paper will be submitted to me for my consideration by the end of 2014. I will subsequently bring the draft to Government for their consideration and approval.

  17. #14
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/...-25193-en.html
    Justice Committee to meet Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association
    The Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will receive an update from the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association at its meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 12th November 2014.

    Committee Chairman David Stanton TD said: “The Reserve Defence Force was set up in 2005, replacing the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil. It has played a very important role in providing back-up to the Permanent Defence Forces. Our Committee last met with the representatives from the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association in April last year. As the Committee with a remit in the area of defence, we are looking forward to receiving an update for the association at our meeting tomorrow. Among the issues we will be keen to discuss are: progress of the Reserve Defence Forces since its reorganisation to date; review of the Value For Money report in 2016; membership numbers of the Reserve Defence Forces; costings associated with the Reserve Defence Forces; utilisation of skills learned by Reserve Defence Forces members; training-related issues arising from current Defence Policy and the benefits of the Reserve Defence Forces to local communities, the Defence Forces as a whole, and to the individual reservist.”

    This meeting will take place at 2.30pm on Wednesday, 12th November 2014 in Committee Room 2.

    Committee proceedings can be followed live here.

    Committee proceedings can also be viewed on the move, through the Houses of the Oireachtas Smartphone App, available for Apple and Android devices.

    Media Enquiries to:

    Ciaran Brennan,
    Houses of the Oireachtas,
    Communications Unit,
    Leinster House,
    Dublin 2

    P: +3531 618 3903
    M: 086-0496518
    F: +3531 618 4551
    Email: Ciaran.brennan@oireachtas.ie


    Committee Membership

    Deputies: Niall Collins (FF); Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (FG); Alan Farrell (FG); Anne Ferris (LAB) [Vice-Chairman]; Seán Kenny (LAB); Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (SF); Finian McGrath (IND); John Paul Phelan (FG); David Stanton (FG) [Chairman]

    Senators: Ivana Bacik (LAB); Martin Conway (FG); Rónán Mullen (IND); Denis O’Donovan (FF); Katherine Zappone (IND); Tony Mulcahy (FG)
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  18. #15
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.rdfra.ie/

    RDFRA to make follow-on submission to Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality

    On Wednesday 12 November at 2.30pm, the National Executive of the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association (RDFRA) will make a submission to the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality - chaired by Deputy David Stanton TD - in Leinster House. This meeting is taking place by invitation following RDFRA's last submission to the committee in April 2013, and is an interim review of the implementation of the Value For Money (VFM) report (The committee meeting can be viewed live on here).


    The RDFRA delegation will be led by the president of the organisation - Mr Ger Kiely - and issues on the agenda include membership numbers of the Reserve Defence Forces; costings linked to the organisation; the legal standing of members and where change is required; Reserve Defence Forces training, operational roles, and how the organisation functions; the valuable role of the Naval Service Reserve; the mutually beneficial relationship that could be developed between private-sector business and the Reserve Defence Forces; and the benefits of Reserve Defence Forces membership to local communities, the individual reservist, and to the Defence Forces as a whole. RDFRA will also be providing input on the progress to date of the VFM report and the 2012 Defence Forces re-org.


    A transcript of RDFRA's previous submission to the Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality can be found here:


    Furthermore, it can be viewed on Youtube here:
    Part 1: (begins at 34:00)
    Part 2:
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  19. #16
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, with this review ‘imminent’ and certain notable anniversaries arriving soon, I thought I’d add a bit of those lofty reflections on some of the commonly perceived aims, objectives and purposes of the Defence Forces..(..of Ireland.. remember the branding!) from a high level vantage.

    It would seem most ordinary people, and probably most perusing IMO, would consider that the ‘A’ scenario:
    INVASION!!! - of Ireland is unthinkable, and so extremely unlikely, that the eventuality is not just out of this world, but in a distant galaxy. Also, that any country so inclined to conventionally INVADE!!! would roll over the Defence Forces in 1-3 days, and the country would revert to the guerrilla style ‘flying columns’ we all learnt about in junior/inter-cert level school history. Presuming though, that the British or Americans save us first.

    Unless it is them.

    However, maybe a more subtle question could be asked... could the country in a scenario ‘B’ – be ‘attacked’...? Still extremely unlikely, but a lot less so than ‘INVASION!!!’.
    ‘Attack’ in the form say of a punishment ‘raid’ by bombardment by air, sea, or ‘commando’ hit-and-run. Think ex-Yugoslavia (Serbia), Gulf War 1&2, Libya, Israel/Palestine (rockets or aircraft either side), Syria or any nation versus nation conflict since and including WW2/The Emergency.

    Then a ‘C’ scenario – a blockade by air &/or sea.

    Also, this consideration; (i) Everybody (circa 30 years old and above) is aware of the concept of domestic subversives, and nowadays, foreign also, and ‘lone wolves’.
    Otherwise, and less drastically, consideration (ii) UN service and other domestic civil and EU commitments.

    [Seriously, ask the average ‘Jo’ the purposes of the Defence Forces... Though saying that, i’m not arguing for the Defence Forces to be seen self-promoting themselves on the street/media everyday, not by any means. I think some of the bigger nations do that too much].

  20. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes FMP liked this post
  21. #17
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Taking above into account, I would be of the opinion that Defence Forces should have at a minimum, near token force examples of most ‘heavier’ more capable and generally more advanced equipment families than are at present available. Reasons been, as a modicum of a deterrent to scenarios A, B and C above, and to not allow such aggression pass unmolested (as would mostly be the case now)...Why allow damage to be done pretty much while the country has to wait before it can react when or IF, ‘they’ decide to land?

    Additionally, if the country has to resort to guerrilla tactics almost from the outset – it does not say much for the advancement of the country from its foundation almost 100 years ago with same limitations...

    [To say that the Defence Forces should not have more heavy equipment because it is an infantry based force, is a circular argument I think, i’m not sure there is any overwhelming nobility to the idea either. Also, in the case of scenario ‘A’ (!) above, all citizens would have the ‘opportunity’ to revert to small group, infantry level action very rapidly anyway...].
    To have enough said equipments to have a home presence and, simultaneously deploy elements abroad on UN service, allowing the country to operate as a mostly self-sufficient, independent and/or lead element on missions with larger nations/less capable nations. This would likely involve some rethink on the balancing and mind-set of the Defence Forces as a whole.

    The nationwide and relatively numerous spread of barracks/bases around the country has been criticised on IMO I think, as been a historical anachronism, related to their past as part of the apparatus of an army of occupation/ with counter insurgency functions – and that fewer, bigger and more centralised barracks would better suit today’s training and logistics.

    I would generally disagree, and i’d guess that many people on informed reflection would think that in the case of scenarios A and B – that the geographical spread of the Defence Forces makes sense (also in the case of consideration (i) to be borne in mind that we have a civil society stable enough to allow the Gardai to be a predominantly unarmed civil force, a fact I consider, to be cherished). As to the logistics and training argument – many ‘Jo Publics’ would probably view training constraints, unfortunately, in similar light to teachers closing schools early for training and parent teacher meetings. They are more likely to say that the PDF is akin to the civil service, to deploy when and where they like for their tax payer’s money worth, and to their convenience not the PDF’s - as the nation’s insurance policy.

    Further, notwithstanding many advocating training abroad, the logistics of travelling around Ireland for training cannot be that onerous? On top of that, while the military is a very peculiar career/industry in itself – I cannot think of too many industries where so many of the [ordinary] staff need to travel abroad for training, let alone bring their equipment with them. Saying that, on balance, membership of PfP should probably be retained, to see what everyone else is doing at close quarters but not more, and there is no shame I think, in continuing as ‘mostly neutral’. There would be more risk, i think, in fully joining NATO proper, and been eventually pressurised/ compelled, into some dubious mission somewhere, where the big boys have some more intractable or inscrutable interests - best avoided by the little fish like Ireland.

    When not training on said improved/heavier arms equipments, the PDF could still dual task (as now) as ‘ordinary’ infantry most of the time in their respective locations. Prevailing education standards and full time service should facilitate this.

    It is unclear to me, exactly what the consensus is on the outcome of the Reserve Defence Forces reorganisation is?.. .is it now just a much leaner organisation, better trained and with better integration with the home barracks, or is it leaner, but two-tier, with integrated/very good/ very committed personnel and then others less so due to normal life commitments etc...

    Personally, taking the ‘A’ scenario and (i) consideration together, along with many people’s assumption of the guerrilla warfare national insurance policy into account – I would venture that quantity and geographic spread is more important (for various reasons) (and comparable somewhat to the GAA clubs locally and not so barrack dependant) overall than quality (Reserves wise) – with equipment and pay to members rising along with their time committed. No harm either, in a lot more people running around society with First Aid skills and an enhanced sense of civic duty... Developing the main assumption further (and I think, related to an assertion on IMO, that the PDF is somewhat top –heavy officer wise – to allow for quick expansion in case of ‘Emergency’) I’d ask, expansion with whom, and with what? The Reserves are small and already have allocated officers, previous members will be increasingly thin on the ground and, as i’ve alluded to before, I think the Defence Forces/country will always be too small and short on investments to throw away any proven, long established and still half-useful armaments. In this regard, I think a Naval Service officer quipped in the press, justifying purchasing bigger vessels, that steel was relatively cheap, and air is free... i’d say similar about half empty buildings(?) in existing barracks/bases.

    Historically, it would seem that many conflicts start with everything, including long stored armaments, being rolled out e.g. Libya ‘the locals’ with like-brand new, but long stored, army rifles. There also seems (small arms wise) to be too much ‘fashion of the day’ to contemplate disbursing the nation of previously expensive and hard to replace arms stores – though it does feel over the years, that there is an almost vindictive (or fearful) approach, to retaining obsolete (but not in an emergency?!) arms equipment e.g where even scrappage was not used, but equipment dumped at sea or, rolled over/buried, smashed, left to rot. (Noting that maintenance of anything... does not seem to be a national forte).

    For example, old rifles, sub- and light- machineguns, and anti-armour weapons may not be ‘cool’ or as efficient as contemporary equipments, but as long as human anatomy has not changed, and the qualities and cost of steel and other armours do not change fundamentally, such weapons will frankly I think, still kill/damage at a rate not vastly different to many contemporary weapons – and impact to a lesser or greater extent related to the quality of opposition, and/or the breadth of deployment. So it would be nice to have items in a mothballed reserve, just in case (or change in fashion) as a fall back option and a larger potential reserve body (think Switzerland or Scandinavian approach to this).

    A continued ‘decentralised’ force of barracks could also serve the function to accommodate such storage (and as a generality, tax Euros spent by resident PDF in regional Cities/primary towns having more of an economic impact than if they were just folded into the main city barracks). A better spread of barracks would also reduce the less than realistic commutes serving members, and some reservists, seem to experience – staff retention, attraction and productivity possible issues if you want to look at it from the management side of things and/or from HR and accounting points of view.

    Overall, and given some of above, a re-balancing of the Defence Forces and allocation of funds, might also be of merit.
    Seeing as a number of nations currently have similar modernisation of equipment and doctrine/organisation programmes ongoing, with impressive if somewhat opaque names, lets call above suggestions; ‘Paddywhack 2016’ or more imaginatively (and opaque-ish but kinda obvious) ‘Trinity 16/22’. Yay.

    Do not be surprised that I have specific arm chair General equipment, operational and acquisition suggestions on these issues. Prepare to be later annoyed/confounded/amused!

  22. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes FMP liked this post
  23. #18
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Realistically if you are talking scenario A, you are talking about an army probably 4+ times the size it is currently, with a much better equipped AC and NS.

    Depending on the scale of a scenario B, the DF could potentially cope.

    It depends on what you mean by heavy equipment and the scale? Are we talking an all-arms armoured brigade. I would say that although probably necessary for scenario A, that it would be overkill as it would be limited in where it could be deployed within the country.

    If you retain a wide geographic spread you reduce the operational effectiveness as it make training harder, but obviously if there is a high threat you would disperse to combat positions.

  24. #19
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    Seems like someone is hankering back to the old days of the DF.
    Lots of troops,lots of bks,obsolete equipment and weapons.
    IE Quantity rather than quality.
    As a professional soldier I think i would prefer the latter.
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  25. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  26. #20
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    569
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Seems like someone is hankering back to the old days of the DF.
    Lots of troops,lots of bks,obsolete equipment and weapons.
    IE Quantity rather than quality.
    As a professional soldier I think i would prefer the latter.
    Couldn't agree more.

  27. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  28. #21
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    I was more trying to set the scene above than trying to get into specifics from the outset. I actually agree with the perceived consensus that trying to establish a Defence Forces big enough, and comprehensively armed enough, to repel a scenario 'a' conventional foreign force invasion would be a futile exercise. I'm thinking more along the lines of a better deterrent - 'on all fronts' possibly to the eventual detriment of the army...but only to a relatively small extent (numbers wise).

    At present, the anti-air defences would, in aerial terms, require the opposing aircraft to be almost on top of us before the DF's could respond. As for multiple entries of aerial whatevers - as missiles, large rockets and/or aircraft - would be very difficult for the existing (essentially one-shot, then run/drive to a new position) systems to counter, and with only a finite amount of defensive missiles to draw on. No effective anti-aircraft - aircraft either. There are essentially no anti-ship (or anti-submarine) weapons available. The existing anti-armour weapons require soldiers to expose themselves to the elements, never mind bullets and bombs, and there are effectively no self-propelled anti-armour and protected weapons i.e. tank-like vehicles. There is no long range artillery, and the nearest thing to it is in short supply, and again, requires soldiers to expose themselves to the elements and everything else, meaning any force with heavy/long range artillery or artillery rockets could strike out at the DF with little chance of recourse from this side. In other words, even in the 'B' or 'C' scenarios, many nations of the world could strike out at the country from a relatively short distance with general physical (if not diplomatic!) impunity.
    E.G. most anyone could fly an ordinary jet airliner over the country at cruising altitude and drop a 'payload' of propaganda leaflets and there would be little that could be done about it.

    So, I'm not suggesting a larger, all over better equipped army, with an all arms brigade, or loads and loads of barracks and poorly and lightly equipped troops...but I am suggesting...
    Last edited by WhingeNot; 15th November 2014 at 01:59.

  29. Likes FMP liked this post
  30. #22
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    (I) That PDF - army - acquires more heavy and advanced equipment - to concentrate on what they can be good at... so say, say heavy wheeled, tank like vehicles, some tracked MICVs, some long range artillery (not necessarily 'heavy' artillery) including self-propelled vehicles. Longer range (and less advanced) anti-armour weapons, and similar dual purpose weapons, and more shared/added value items in amounts likely to make a difference e.g. night vision equipment. Longer range anti-aircraft missiles, and accurate gun systems capable of staying put and defending against multiple targets (CIWS like). Some anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons (not including Battleships and aircraft carriers!).
    (II) Some enhanced naval vessels.
    (III) Some upgrades and expansion of air (flying) assets.

    [Noting, (II) and (III) are likely to draw personnel and finances away from the army element].

    Basically, a sum of weapons that says to opponents: you can try scenario 'B' or 'C' yes, but unlike previously, it will cost you a few wasted millions in missiles etc. shot down, and run the risk of tens of millions of capital equipment (and human losses) in the case of aircraft, ships, armour damaged or destroyed... to the point where the less attractive scenario 'A' needs to be contemplated.

    The new equipment could more realistically though, be deployed overseas with the UN, and some left at home for training.

    As for the reserves (army) yes, more quantity and less quality if it means vice versa for the permanent forces...
    I.e. more quality for the permanent defence forces, possibly requiring less quantity.
    This may be more of the Scandinavian/Swiss model again.

  31. Likes FMP liked this post
  32. #23
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    (I) That PDF - army - acquires more heavy and advanced equipment - to concentrate on what they can be good at... so say, say heavy wheeled, tank like vehicles, some tracked MICVs, some long range artillery (not necessarily 'heavy' artillery) including self-propelled vehicles. Longer range (and less advanced) anti-armour weapons, and similar dual purpose weapons, and more shared/added value items in amounts likely to make a difference e.g. night vision equipment. Longer range anti-aircraft missiles, and accurate gun systems capable of staying put and defending against multiple targets (CIWS like). Some anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons (not including Battleships and aircraft carriers!).
    (II) Some enhanced naval vessels.
    (III) Some upgrades and expansion of air (flying) assets.

    [Noting, (II) and (III) are likely to draw personnel and finances away from the army element].

    Basically, a sum of weapons that says to opponents: you can try scenario 'B' or 'C' yes, but unlike previously, it will cost you a few wasted millions in missiles etc. shot down, and run the risk of tens of millions of capital equipment (and human losses) in the case of aircraft, ships, armour damaged or destroyed... to the point where the less attractive scenario 'A' needs to be contemplated.

    The new equipment could more realistically though, be deployed overseas with the UN, and some left at home for training.

    As for the reserves (army) yes, more quantity and less quality if it means vice versa for the permanent forces...
    I.e. more quality for the permanent defence forces, possibly requiring less quantity.
    This may be more of the Scandinavian/Swiss model again.
    Are you planning a blitzkreig on belfast or do you worry we might not being able to stop the brits on the Boyne when they attack Dublin.

    The state is is a political and monetary union called the EU, is at peace with its neighbours. Even at the height of the cold war there was no real conventional soviet threat to ireland. There is no point in talking about resisting an invasion, its simply not going to happen. What is going to happen is peace support missions with EU states. And that means a modern nato style army.
    Last edited by paul g; 15th November 2014 at 08:01.

  33. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, na grohmití, pym, apod liked this post
  34. #24
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like
    Adopt NATO STANAGs as THE standards for all logistic, ordnance, Cis, transport etc

  35. #25
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,860
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Adopt NATO STANAGs as THE standards for all logistic, ordnance, Cis, transport etc
    That's what interoperability is supposed to be about

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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