Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White Paper - When is it due to be published?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    DAIL COMMITTEE REPORT

    Wednesday, 12 November 2014

    Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality Debate


    ...........

    Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: I will be brief because, as we are aware, there is a critical debate under way in the Dáil at present. I thank you, Chairman, for facilitating today’s meeting. It is very important that the committee agreed to invite the representative body before it and it is to be lauded on its actions.
    Given the day that is in it, the time available will not perhaps allow for the type of in-depth discussion we need. Could we reserve time in the coming weeks, no later than that, for the committee to engage constructively on the points that have been brought to our attention? When the Reserve Defence Force representatives came before us in April of last year it is probably true to say that some people felt they were being perhaps a little alarmist. A year and a half later there is a sense of fatalism in what they have said to us. I had many questions to put, but what is really needed in the situation is an affirmation on the part of the committee of a recognition of the importance of the Reserve Defence Force. The reserves are a critical part of the defence structure on this island. We must look at the issue in the context of the fact that we have pared back our Permanent Defence Force to 9,500 members. We have the lowest expenditure among neutral countries as a percentage of GDP in the European Union. The Reserve Defence Force is operating way below its establishment strength.

    We have been asked to conduct a review. I have one question in that respect. Is the committee being asked to conduct the review or is it considered that we should secure outside expertise to carry it out on our behalf? I think I speak for members on all sides when I say that there is a recognition among the body politic of the importance of reservists. If it is the sense of the witnesses that they have been set up by faceless bureaucrats within a system, the purpose of which is to make them fail, then that is not our ambition for them, which is to see them realise their full potential. The committee should and will do everything in its power to work with reservists to ensure the sort of priority they deserve is given to them in the future.

    Chairman: Does Deputy Ó Fearghaíl have any specific question?

    Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: None other than how they feel we should undertake the review to which they referred.

    Chairman: They were interesting points. One point related to a legislative underpinning. Could the witnesses be more specific in that regard, perhaps not now but they could forward the information to us on specifically what they mean by that?
    Mention was also made of meaningful engagement with employers. Again, that is very broad and very non-specific.

    Mr. Patrick Mulley: Might I respond to the point?

    Chairman: Before that I wish to allow Deputy Seán Kenny to contribute and then I will invite Mr. Mulley to speak.

    Deputy Seán Kenny: I am standing in for my colleague, Senator Denis Landy, who cannot be present due to illness. He was a member of the FCA for a considerable period. I understand from the witnesses that their numbers have reduced to 1,734 from closer to 5,000. That is a drastic reduction.

    I accept the comparison with the Garda Reserve which has an agreement with the Garda Síochána that its members will be released for duty and there will not be any adverse consequences for their careers, but the same is not true for the Reserve Defence Force. We must examine the matter to see whether it could be addressed by legislative underpinning or by means of regulation by the Minister. I am not sure but perhaps an employment regulation is required. Someone should not have to suffer for voluntary engagement with the Defence Forces and playing their part in serving their country. They should be given employment guarantees in that regard.

    Chairman: Does anyone else wish to contribute?

    Deputy Finian McGrath: I wish to ask a few questions later.

    Chairman: Does anyone wish to respond to the questions?

    Mr. Patrick Mulley: In response to the comparison we made with the Garda Reserve, when a reserve garda is in regular employment, a service level agreement is drawn up between the Garda Síochána and the employer in question. That includes an information pack for the employer from An Garda Síochána. We do not have a similar provision. One is on one’s own unless one has a job in the Civil Service or the public service. We seek a similar provision for the Naval Service Reserve. It is not a case of amending legislation at this point or introducing new legislation. An amendment to equality legislation to specify that a reservist could not be discriminated against because of his or her membership of the reserve might be sufficient.

    Something like that might satisfy the legislators, rather than bringing in a whole raft of new legislation.

    Deputy Finian McGrath: I wish to make a couple of points. First, I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their excellent submission. I agree with my colleague,
    Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, that members value the Reserve Defence Forces and it is recognised across all the political parties. However, when one gets down to the nuts and bolts of this debate, it pertains to value for money. My initial reaction, when hearing that term, is that of course one must be responsible in that one is spending taxpayers' money in respect of the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association. However, as far as I am concerned, I want commitment and dedication to the job in the Reserve Defence Forces. That would be my first priority and is what the State should seek. My first question relates to the association's submission, in which it states that 2,335 reservists must be recruited by 2016 to meet the establishment number and that this will be an extremely difficult target to reach. That target is a year and a half away. Why does the association say that and why will it be so difficult?

    Mr. Martin Cooney: As for the reason it is difficult, if one looks at any recruitment campaign - say the last one that happened earlier this year - the upshot of the entire campaign is that for the formation in, for example, the Defence Forces training centre, DFTC, one gets a recruit platoon. I am unsure of the exact numbers but in general, one gets perhaps 50 people for that formation and then there are three formations. As for the current campaign that is ongoing again in the DFTC, I believe there are 80 applicants for that at present. In general, our figures show that for any one successful recruit, one needs four applicants. Consequently, just on a statistical level, to recruit 1,000 successful applicants, one would need 4,000 applications. That said, if one got the interest, the resources are not there to train them. One needs people on the ground to train reservists and I would challenge any semi-State or State body to recruit 1,000 people in a year in circumstances in which they must have the people undergo medical examinations and security checks, which can take anything from six to 12 weeks, as well as to undergo interviews and the entire process. Consequently, there are logistical issues with training that number of people, whereby one is trying to bring up part-time personnel on their spare time and using up their previous annual leave. One has a permanent force that has been under huge pressure since its reorganisation and there are the issues of all the administrative criteria, leaving aside the sheer numbers, which are huge.

    Deputy Finian McGrath: That leads onto my second question. Basically, Mr. Cooney has indicated there is a huge cost issue. The next question I had intended to ask was on the overall cost of the Reserve Defence Forces. What is the current approximate cost in this regard and what is its cost-effectiveness?

    Mr. Patrick Mulley: The current allocation for the Reserve Defence Forces on direct payment is €1.3 million, which equates to 0.29% of the complete defence budget. Originally, in 2013, we had an allocation of €2.3 million but that was reduced. Moreover, it has been reducing dramatically each year since 2009. We also had an allocation of 41,000 man-days but that number was slashed to 28,000 last year. We now have a situation whereby the resource allocation within which we must work is €1.3 million and our man-day allocation is 28,000. As my colleague stated, if we could recruit, we are prohibited because neither the resource allocation nor the man-day allocation is there. We have been painted into a corner, whereby we have no control over this whatsoever. That is the allocation we received and if that does not rise pro rata as people come in, we cannot reach the 4,000 establishment number. In fact, it is simple arithmetic. Four thousand people by seven days is 41,000 man-days so therefore, if they have restricted us, which they have, we cannot perform and cannot meet the key performance indicators, KPIs, as was mentioned earlier. We cannot meet the unit KPIs because the people do not have the allocation to train.

    Deputy Finian McGrath: The current cost in 2014 is €1.3 million to the taxpayer.

    Mr. Patrick Mulley: In direct payments to the Reserve Defence Forces, RDF.

    Deputy Finian McGrath: Yes, that is the figure I was seeking.

    Mr. Patrick Mulley: Yes.

    Deputy Finian McGrath: As a layperson, that figure is far lower than I would have thought.


    ..........

    Comment


    • #32
      DAIL COMMITTEE REPORT

      Wednesday, 12 November 2014

      Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality Debate


      ...........


      Mr. Patrick Mulley: The value for money, VFM, review set out to take the overall costs of running and administering the RDF. The VFM review came up with a figure that, as an organisation, we seriously dispute, in that it was €21 million to €22 million. The RDF has suffered a downwards straight-line graph on its membership since 2009 because in that year, the restrictions came into place. The precursor to these restrictions happened in 2008 when a recruitment campaign, which had been sanctioned by the Minister, was cancelled permanently. In 2009, the recruiting restrictions came into place and we were not allowed to recruit more than 400 people, even though the VFM review states that we were losing 1,400 people per annum at that point and the VFM review took account of that. However, that review contains contradictory statements and therefore, had the number of people been maintained, we would then have an RDF today that could be stood up to 4,000 members.

      The allocation of 4,000 members for the RDF has never come into being because, as my colleague pointed out earlier, in January 2014 we had 1,200 vacancies in the RDF and there still was attrition going on. One thing that worked against us in a sad way is that people who had been in the RDF in Galway up until the reorganisation were transferred to Cork. People who were in the RDF in Athlone were transferred to Dublin and people who were in the RDF in Dublin were transferred to Athlone. The only way in which we see this is that they were discommoded intentionally. Therefore, we lost all those people and in addition, they managed people out, because we all were given a document in March 2013 on which we were obliged to tick a box indicating whether we wished to go to a new unit, to remain with the old unit in the place it was or to be discharged. A lot of people were managed out in that way and in consequence, our numbers fell dramatically. However, the costs incurred did not fall at all and that is the reason for the €21 million. In a statement earlier in 2013, the Minister stated there would be a 50% reduction in the RDF, which thereby would generate a saving of €11 million. It is only a paper saving because the same people who were put down as incurring the cost factor of €11 million are still in the Permanent Defence Force, PDF. That saving is not true but as for the saving on the RDF, in 2008 we cost €7.9 million whereas in 2014, we are costing €1.3 million.

      Deputy Finian McGrath: I refer to the point made about how the reservists may be required to take up to four days in annual leave to meet simple administrative requirements and the submission then referred to using up 60% of reservists' statutory annual leave. There are two points this regard. First, from the management point of view, it obviously is a way for it to try to save some money. Is there another agenda, in that this may be a test of the commitment of the RDF members? Could it be to make it awkward and to ascertain whether it was possible to have people who would take a really bad hit to be members of the Reserve Defence Force?

      Mr. Martin Cooney: As a preliminary point to that, there is no saving regardless of whether they run it during the day or at night, because the people who administer the tests are paid a salary and their appointment is on a 24-7 basis. Consequently, if they are dictated to turn up at 8 p.m., they must so do. For reservists, the sum costs in respect of the structure and the establishment are there and the administration is there. There is absolutely no saving whatsoever, if one uses the Defence Forces to administer these tests, in just changing them to be flexible. As I stated, the Permanent Defence Force gets no further incentive or pay for so doing. There are lots of issues with this and my colleague, Mr. James Scanlon, can allude to some of them.

      Mr. James Scanlon: I wish to cover briefly the idea of KPIs. They are broken down into individual and unit-----

      Chairman: Can Mr. Scanlon explain what are KPIs?

      Mr. James Scanlon: Sorry, they are key performance indicators or targets. Basically, if one considers the individual KPIs, which are the most important, they are broken down into a medical, a fitness test, a weapons test and one's attendance over the year. That is the shortest way of looking at it. The main problem we are having at present is with medicals. As that is only one quarter of the targets, one might ask what is the problem.

      The problem is that the medical has a knock-on affect in other areas. A person cannot undergo a fitness test without first undergoing a medical test.

      Consideration is being given to the introduction next year of a personal weapons test. However, taking of the personal weapons test will be, because it is quite a strenuous test, dependent on the person having first passed a medical and fitness test. Currently, we are being starved of the medical. We assumed that a new medical, of a less stringent nature, would be introduced for the reserve. I recently had a medical done. It included an ECG and blood tests and I was offered vaccinations. That type of medical is overkill for a reservist. It might be said that there can be only one standard. However, there are already different standards in place in that a member of the Air Corps or Naval Service does not have to complete part three of the fitness test. There is not only one standard even for the PDF. Standards can be tailored to the commitment or to what is necessary. We do not want people who fall over, etc., during a fitness test but we do not believe it is necessary to put the taxpayer to the cost of detailed medicals for reservists.

      Some of our suggestions in this regard include that a medical examination could be provided at the weekend by the Defence Forces; that the reservist GP provide a medical for the Defence Forces for a set fee, which would allow the reservist to attend his or her GP at a time of their own choosing, be that at the weekend or in the evening; that RDF doctors be activated to help the resources available to conduct medicals; that medicals be done every three years rather than annually, with self-certification being acceptable in the other years; and that consideration be given to the introduction of the type of medicals provided by the Canadian Defence Forces, which are of different frequency and intensity dependent on the type of service in which the person is engaged. The reason we are harping on this medical target is because it is influencing all of the other targets. We have been given verbal assurances by the General Staff that we will not be held to these KPIs because they are not providing the resources to us. However, these assurances are only verbal. The people by whom they were given may be retired by the time a review is undertaken, which review will consist of a look-back at the targets and assessment of whether or not they were met.

      We are asking that the Defence Forces would consider the introduction of a flexible method for the achievement of medicals. The other KPIs flow from those. We have no doubt that members of the RDF are capable of meeting all of these targets.

      Mr. Martin Cooney: Deputy McGrath asked, and astutely so, if this was a method of testing the commitment of a reservist. I believe it most definitely is. It would test the commitment of anyone who had 26 annual leave days per year if five of those days were being used up on administrative tasks. I am testing the impatience of my employer if I ask for his or her indulgence in this regard and testing the impatience of my other half in that because I have had to take part in a career course and engage in administrative tasks she would be complaining about my not having taken her and the children on a holiday. That is a huge test to anyone's commitment to an organisation.

      Chairman: Is there no flexibility on the part of the employer?

      Mr. Martin Cooney: There is. Much is dependent on the goodwill of one's employer. An employer pays an employee to do a job. I can turn up for part 1 of my medical only to be told that the doctor will not be available until 2 p.m.. If, as in my case, it takes almost an hour to get to the establishment where the medical is to be done, I would not be inclined to return to my employment at that stage. Yesterday, a man who turned up for his medical, having taken a day off work for it, was told he would not be seen at all. Employers can only have so much patience. They are, after all, paying employees to do a job rather than sit in the Defence Forces medical establishment.

      Deputy Finian McGrath: Mr. Cooney referred earlier to the deficiencies in the records and administration associated with the Reserve Defence Force. Perhaps he would elaborate on the deficiencies in that regard.

      Mr. Martin Cooney: A review of the books identified records of people who were dead or had resigned and to people in the Defence Forces in Australia and Canada. For example, I had applied for a position which was later confirmed. Six months later I received a letter appointing me to another position, completing ignoring the fact that
      I had been at that time already serving in another unit for three or four months. It took a further 12 months before I was on the computer record system of my unit. As such, it was not possible to record any information relating to me in respect of training. I was also being contacted by the other unit asking why I was not turning up for training despite the fact that I had more than 100 hours voluntary training done. They are the type of issues we have been experiencing.

      Chairman: There is a need for a tidying up administratively.



      ..........

      Comment


      • #33
        DAIL COMMITTEE REPORT

        Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality Debate


        Mr. Martin Cooney: Yes.

        Deputy Finian McGrath: There is another issue highlighted in the submission about which I am very uncomfortable. I am very supportive of the Reserve Defence Force. On the issue of structural conflict between the terms "Defence Forces" and "Reserve Defence Force", as a taxpayer I see both as our Defence Forces. I do not like to see distinctions between organisations. All Defence Forces personnel represent the State. We are very proud of all such personnel and appreciate their commitment, time and effort. As I said, I do not like the structural conflict between the Reserve Defence Force and the Defence Forces.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: I welcome the presentation, which was a fairly strong, no holds barred effort. I must confess I have no family or other involvement in the Reserve Defence Force. Most, if not all, of what I have heard today is new to me. I have some sympathy with Mr. Cooney's point in relation to stresses at home in terms of time. He should try politics some time.

        Deputy Finian McGrath: Hear, hear.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: We can all empathise with his remarks in that regard.

        Deputy Finian McGrath: It is a bit like being a councillor.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: I seek clarification on a couple of the statistics provided. In regard to the figure of 1,700, does that include the 40 people recruited at the start of this year?

        Mr. Martin Cooney: No. The figure of 1,700 relates to those paid this year.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: The figure of 9,500 was also mentioned. Is that a historic figure in respect of reserves or does it include former FCA members?

        Mr. Patrick Mulley: Following the reorganisation in 2005, there were 9,500 reservists. This figure pertained up to and including 20 November 2012 when the next reorganisation took place. There was a reorganisation in 1999, a second reorganisation in 2005 and a third reorganisation in 2012. The number of personnel has been vastly reduced as a result of these reorganisations. Currently, there are 4,000 reservists in the establishment. The figure of 1,734 relates to those who attended paid training in the past 12 months.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: There is a perception - the witnesses can disabuse me of this if it is not correct - that there is a significant turnover in terms of involvement in the RDF. As stated earlier by Mr. Cooney people often join when they are young and have few commitments and then leave.
        Mr. Patrick Mulley: The reorganisation demonstrated that is not true in that to achieve a nominal figure of 4,000 people had to be managed out. Therefore, we were over-subscribed for the 4,000 places. In regard to the commentary around turnover, while turnover in the first year is quite high - as is the case in any organisation - in general retention is good. As stated in the VFM in the years leading up to 2012 attendance stood at 86% to 87%, which speaks for itself.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: People who get involved tend to stay involved. Mr. Cooney stated that the management structure following on from the reorganisation - which we are now 20 plus months into - the new structure still has not been put into operation. Is that new structure likely to be put in place any time soon?

        Mr. Martin Cooney: It is happening slowly but surely. Undoubtedly, the General Staff is committed to this. It has given us full support and have at all times been supportive of us and met with us when requested. At issue in this regard is middle management in that the message comes down the line to middle management and then stops so that the people dealing with us either have a lack of information or training or do not know what is going on. Also, at issue is the speed of the reorganisation. The value for money review took place in November; the administrative order was formalised at the beginning of February and we were to be reorganised by March.

        That is significant speed of change in respect of such a large organisation which is spread throughout the country. While the administrative order was issued within weeks of the draft, the actual follow-on administration process was not up to speed. The general regulation governing the entire reserve has not been brought up to date. However, I understand that a draft is near completion and that it will be signed off. It is a little bit late for this, given that we are halfway through the process towards the next review.

        Deputy John Paul Phelan: Again, the middle management issues sound a great deal like politics.

        Mr. Martin Cooney: We could swap roles.

        Chairman: I wish to raise one or two points. Earlier, I referred to a shift in Government defence policy. This is a matter which the committee needs to discuss. If our guests have any suggestions with regard to legislative underpinning, perhaps they might send them on to us. There is also the question of meaningful engagement with employers. There are the various employer bodies and then there are single traders. That is an interesting aspect of the matter. I am not sure whether employers or the organisations which represent them have already commented on this to our guests or whether they have had any engagement with such organisations. Will they indicate whether such engagement has taken place?

        Mr. Patrick Mulley: We have not had any up to this point. We are seeking to make some connections with IBEC. We decided not to proceed in that regard until we came before the committee.

        Chairman: The other issue which arises is that of defined operational roles. This old chestnut has been around for as long as I can remember and, to my knowledge, the reserve still does not have a defined operational role.

        Mr. Patrick Mulley: On the previous occasion on which we came before the committee, I stated that at that point there had been a discussion about it being an aid to the civil authority. That matter has not been advanced because, as Mr. Cooney pointed out, the defence legislation has not been updated. We are still waiting for the relevant material relating to Defence Forces regulation R5 to be published. There has been movement in respect of one matter in that we will, under the amendment to R5, be able to perform certain duties. This matter was also raised on the previous occasion on which we came before the committee. We are waiting to see the shape the changes involved will take.

        Mr. Martin Cooney: My colleague, Mr. Gilbey, has done some research on employer engagement in other jurisdictions. Perhaps he might outline his findings in brief.

        Chairman: Mr. Gilbey should ensure that his comments are very brief because we are really up against it from the point of view of time.

        Mr. Rob Gilbey: I did a great deal of work on international comparisons, particularly in respect of the four countries - Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand - at which the value-for-money report looked. There are four key fundamentals which the reserve forces in this countries have and which ours does not. These were pretty much glossed over in the value-for-money report. The first of these fundamentals is operational purpose, which we have just discussed and which is absolutely pivotal. It is necessary because recruitment and training can be orientated around it. The second relates to employment protection legislation. This is both a key enabler and mission critical and it is standard among all our comparator nations. As stated earlier, it was previously present in section 57 of the Defence Forces Act 1940 but it is no longer there. We hope that employment protection legislation will be discussed comprehensively in the context of the forthcoming White Paper. It certainly was not discussed in connection with the value-for-money report. If reservists do not have any guarantee that their livelihoods are safe, there is no guarantee that we can actually mobilise them. It is, therefore, really a matter of courtesy to protect reservists who are themselves protecting Ireland.
        Legislation alone does not work. There must also be employer support and engagement. It is not sufficient to oblige employers to release reservists for mobilisation and, possibly, training. There must be engagement between the Department and employers. This is generally done by all our comparator nations through consultative bodies which bridge the gap between defence and industry. The establishment of such a group here was recommended in a military board report published in 1999. To our detriment, however, this recommendation was never pursued. Again, the White Paper may also address this matter. It is important that employers understand that there are significant business benefits to employing reservists. In that context, we learn practical skills, develop personality traits and obtain qualifications during our reserve service which have scalable value. This position in this regard is outlined in reports relating to and produced by SaBRE, the UK's reservist organisation, which were compiled with the assistance of the Chartered Management Institute. These reports scaled the cost attributed to reserve training in order to show employers how much that training is worth. Employers in other nations are also rewarded for supporting and hiring reservists. In Australia, for example, employers can claim up to $1,400 per week through an employer support payment scheme if they release their reservists for training and deployment. Such is the importance of supporting employers, there is even an international conference on employer supports for reservists which is held on a biannual basis. This conference is used to discuss research and experience in order to enhance reserve capability. To date, however, Ireland has not participated in the conference. We would like to hope that - going forward - it might be possible for us to consider attending.

        ..........

        Comment


        • #34
          DAIL COMMITTEE REPORT

          Wednesday, 12 November 2014

          Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality Debate


          ...........

          In the international context, all of our comparator nations classify reservists as part-time employees. The Reserve Defence Force in this country prides itself on being a volunteer organisation. Unfortunately, however, the removal of the annual gratuity and the policy of measured compulsory volunteerism has led to poor retention rates. This explains why there is such a deficit among the lower level ranks at present.

          Mr. Martin Cooney: The fundamental point is that this is not something new. It has been done in other jurisdictions, which have employer engagement agencies. In order to deal with the employer bodies in this country, the establishment of such an agency is required.

          Chairman: That is interesting. Does Mr. Richardson wish to comment?

          Mr. Neal Richardson: In the context of the point Mr. Gilbey made with regard to SaBRE and the British Armed Forces' employment engagement programme, a number of recent surveys in respect of various promotional courses within the British military reserve placed an actual financial value on reservist training, etc., to employers. The surveys in question indicate that putting a person through recruit training - the lowest level of training the British reserve forces offer - is worth £960 to a civilian employer. Training a person to be a reserve officer is worth £22,000 to such an employer. The British have placed a value on what is involved and this has given employers incentives and changed the perception in respect of reserve forces in the UK. If that was done here and if employers were to look on employing Reserve Defence Force personnel as an actual benefit to them, it is something we would welcome.

          Chairman: I think we are done. I thank our guests for their submission and ask them to continue to engage with us. A number of questions were posed and perhaps they will reflect on these and come back to us with detailed replies. I wish to acknowledge the presence of other Oireachtas Members who attended this meeting and those in the Visitors Gallery who have shown an interest in proceedings. We will now go into private session to deal with some housekeeping matters.



          The joint committee went into private session at 3.40 p.m. and adjourned at 4 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 November 2014.



          ...........

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post
            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...
            Or we could always join NATO

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by sofa View Post
              Or we could always join NATO
              A majority of the Irish electorate are extremely unlikely to want that

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                Let's talk purely about the conventional threats

                What level threat do we face?
                Realistically extremely low
                Realistically the only threats we face are countries in Europe (most of whom are stable countries within the EU), Russia (or Eastern bloc) and the USA due to our geographic location.
                The threat from and of these would more than likely be based on a serious change in relations between these external actors.

                Taking Ireland to take Ireland (ie take every inch) is extremely unlikely, we would have a have seriously pissed off another nation.
                The only conceivable threat would be:
                air and/sea landing
                Up to brigade strength (or brigades at multiple locations)
                Primarily infantry based force
                Depending on the force they could may have IFVs, APCs or be light infantry
                Depending on the force they could have light (105) or heavy (155) arty in regimental strength
                Depending on the force they could have MBTs in squadron strength
                They are likely to have some support helicopters and possibly attack helicopters
                They are likely to have naval (possibly amphibious) and air support

                However, they are likely to be in or be soon to be in a major war (probably involving nuclear powers), so the vast bulk of their forces (especially their best and most capable) are likely to be already committed or be otherwise unavailable (including assets mentioned above)

                Potental targets?:
                Major airports (most likely Shannon)
                Major ports (most likely Cork, possibly Shannon Estuary)
                Possibly major natural resources (eg Corrib, Kinsale, Whitegate, Whiddy Island)

                So we should potentially equip ourselves to meet the threat.

                However, we thing of a USA-v-Russia scenario (with Shannon being taken by the Russians) we could expect help from the USA as it would be a strategic threat to them.
                So if you thing this is a foreseeable threat are you willing to pay an extra €500 a year in tax to fund the squadron of MBTs, multiple battalions of IFVs/APCs, medium range SAMs, squadron of swing role fighters and 3 frigates. Oh and the wages of at least triple the amount of personnel we have currently?

                Or would a more viable alternative (wish list) be:
                - double the amount of infantry MOWAGs
                - equip the Cav & Armd Car Sqns with the current quantity of vehicles
                - get a battery of medium range SAMs
                - get a squadron of light strike jet fighters/trainers
                - ensure we have enough weapons systems & equipment to fully equip all units (eg Javelin CLUs)
                - buy 2 EPVs with more military capability

                But as I said even this is a wish list

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  A majority of the Irish electorate are extremely unlikely to want that
                  Majority of the electorate don't like being fined for drunk driving either. The electorate don't always know what is in their best interests.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    Majority of the electorate don't like being fined for drunk driving either. The electorate don't always know what is in their best interests.
                    No but it would be them that would get to make the decision

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      This is firmly in hovertanks territory but I think we should get some advanced s-300 system from Uncle Vlad to have just in case they get uppidy next door....
                      Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yes it is in hovertanks.

                        Unless Ireland decide to make some kind of strategic change like NATO or up GDP spend ( both completely unlikely with the current political parties ) I would not expect much change .
                        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I dunno, surely the S300 would tick all the boxes for SF & others:

                          It's not "NATO compatible", not Israeli and can't so easily be tied into some joint EU army, rabble rabble conscription narrative.

                          Half a dozen S300 batteries rolling down O'Connell St. in 2016 in front of Taoiseach/Field Marshal Gerry.

                          Easy sale to the public.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            No need to buy,rig up something that resembles same,use airsoft,neither those on the stand nor on the street will spot the difference.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              However, we thing of a USA-v-Russia scenario (with Shannon being taken by the Russians) we could expect help from the USA as it would be a strategic threat to them.
                              But what if The USA took a likening to the Shannon area using its air facilities (USAF) and estuary (US Navy) to keep an eye on the eastern Atlantic. Of course they would ask first but when Ireland says NO due to Neutrality they might take it anyway. And there probably be no help from Russia.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Stevo768 View Post
                                But what if The USA took a likening to the Shannon area using its air facilities (USAF) and estuary (US Navy) to keep an eye on the eastern Atlantic. Of course they would ask first but when Ireland says NO due to Neutrality they might take it anyway. And there probably be no help from Russia.
                                At the height of the cold war when the russians were considered to pose a real threat they didn't take or size shannon.

                                Now, they Americans are so far ahead of the russians they will never loose that advantage, so honestly they're never going to risk international pariah status to seize a place they really don't need. All that sabre rattling by Putin masks the fact that on the air and sea the russians don't pose a real threat to Nato forces.

                                As for invasion, again during the cold war it was believed that unless there was a protracted ground war in Europe that resulted in the russians reaching the french coast there was n chance of invasion. The most likey threat was seen as special forces raids and even these would be near impossible for the russians to mount. look at the back copies of an cosantoir, and see the type of exercies (although few and far between) there were running in the 1970's and 1980's.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X