Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  11
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 259
  1. #26
    Potential Liability yellowjacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    53.175N 6.796W
    Posts
    3,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    I suppose we better CC the memo on to the COS out of courtesy.
    .
    .
    .
    With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

  2. #27
    6-40509-04014-7 yooklid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right behind you.....
    Posts
    2,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally posted by Come-quickly
    Who says any of the Tank crews would be RDF, there's plentiful other roles in the proposed unit.

    Originally posted by paul g
    while the other squadron could be an RDF unit.
    To me this implies the crews.
    Meh.

  3. #28
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yep, I meant reservist crews, given that integrated reservists will form a third of a PDF infantry battalion and artillery regiment and 60% of the air defence regiment in the future, if they're acquired then why not train reservists n the use of tanks?


    I don't think that MBT will appear, but I do believe that they have their place if the army is going to developing a meaningful combat capability, and that they're not entirely out of the question. I was just throwing out some ideas about this and the future of the cavalry corps, so less of the sarcasm about CC to the COS

  4. #29
    Potential Liability yellowjacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    53.175N 6.796W
    Posts
    3,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally posted by paul g
    , so less of the sarcasm about CC to the COS
    Apologies for attempting humour, I'll try not to let it happen again. :D

    Anyway, I'm all for this plan, but in the end of the day can't see this happening in the current climate.
    .
    .
    .
    With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

  5. #30
    John
    Guest
    Originally posted by yellowjacket
    Apologies for attempting humour, I'll try not to let it happen again. :D

    Anyway, I'm all for this plan, but in the end of the day can't see this happening in the current climate.
    Can you see anything happening in the current climate? Me either. It's good to throw out ideas.

  6. #31
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apology accepted, being old I've never learnt to type, the message took me two hours to compose since i couldn't dictate it to the secretary and a recent addition to the G household keeps me awake at night, so am a bit short tempered at the moment. but truth is that acquiring second hand MBT wouldn't cost that much in the wider scheme of things, would be a hell of a lot cheaper and effective then the centauro, especially in view of the fact of how they would be utilised, would give the army a vastly improved capability, especially as there is a need to improve its warfighting capability. Logically, if the army is only going to engage in peace keeping and therefore doesn't need tanks, why bother with the Artillery corps.
    Last edited by paul g; 6th June 2003 at 19:33.

  7. #32
    6-40509-04014-7 yooklid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right behind you.....
    Posts
    2,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Where is the Centauro coming from? I keep hearing it. Is it a pure board thing or is it being seriously floated in military circles???

    -Y
    Meh.

  8. #33
    Potential Liability yellowjacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    53.175N 6.796W
    Posts
    3,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pure board thing.

    Possibly a pirhana based gun system might be considered, but a whole new chassis wouldn't make much sense.
    .
    .
    .
    With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

  9. #34
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually it was being mooted as a Scorpion replacement in the think tank at Irishmilitary.com, well worth a visit i your interested in this sort of idea throwing.
    The US army seems to be having some trouble integrating a 105mm full recoil gun on to the PIII chassis, it's working out to be quite expensive.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  10. #35
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is all board stuff and extremly hypothetical, but i think I didn't raise anything that shouldn't be discussed; as for the future cavalry corps, an AML replacement will have to be acquired from 2005 onwards, logically a Piranha III with a 40mm high velocity cannon makes the most sense, while even if they are updated with diesel engines and 90mm guns, the Scorpions are already coming up for their quarter century in service, and will have to be replaced around 2010; sounds like a long time, but its not. As for MGS, yep, there is the problem of recoil on such a light chassisalong with the Battleship/battlecruiser question; the Stryker MGS only carries 18 rounds of 105mm, which is pretty pathetic, while the Centuro is as expensive and heavy as a MBT.

    Its all to do with long term planning. Continued peace in the North (its a decade on from the Downing street declaration) and British troop withdrawl will affect the defence forces, its difficult to see the IRA returning to what petained from 1969 to 1994; when the RIR has gone and there are only 2000 british troops in the north, the defence force's barracks and units along the border will also go. While you could argue that there was a similar gap between the border campaign in the 1950's and 1969, the simple truth is that the situation is very different, and the provo's would find it hard to re-start their campaign; people who provided low level support like safe houses, intelligence, turning a blind eye etc vital to their operations, wouldn't today; while nobody would doubt that catholics in northern ireland were badly treated at the start of the present troubles, this situation has changed, nationalists today are educated, richer, and ultimatedly have a bigger stake in society, and few would be willing to support a return to pre-1994 or anything remotedly like it, and the decline of the Irish catholic church has been amazing in the past ten years.
    Moves towards collective European defence structures will also affect the composition and equipment of the defence forces, more than many on the board often realise, and not in the way they think. There is a belief that it will mean more and better quality equipment more suited to warfighting, which is true; there is also an assumption that personel level will remain static which is a mistake, the future defence forces will have fewer men even from today's levels, the air corps and naval service will draw men away from the army eventually; the AMLs were essentially bought as internal security vehicles for four PDF cavalry squadrons (around 48 were bought), should they be replaced by similar vehicles or should a new approach be taken? I'm not flaming, but realistically there won't be three brigades in both the PDF and RDF in 10 years time, there will be two PDF and 2 RDF brigades; the defence forces has traditionally always gone for men over equipment, since that was the best choice for the internal security role, but that role will largely disappear in the coming decade; UN peace keeping has also changed; the end of the cold war released the far better equiped, and more importantly, nato armies, to undertake peace support missions, and realistically the days of the Lebanon and UN peace keeping are gone; as the overseas role becomes more important to the defence forces, and we are asked to provide combined arms battlegroups to fulfil our international obligations, there will be a trade off, and manpower will decrease to pay for more equipment and increased training, a process that has already started. Also the country is more open then it was at the time lets say of the Pope's visit, things like this and improving relations with britain will affect our outlook towards things like defence and neutrality. Ten years ago, the defence forces were essentially a gendarmarie with pretensions to being an army, in ten years time it will have to be conventional trained force where the white paper committment to having a light infantry force with appropriate levels of all arms supporting capability will be revised to a light infantry force with firepower approaching that deployed by lets say for example, the US marine corps.


    Secondly, people do question the need for the defence forces, we all know and experience this, and the simple truths are that without being offensive or rude, lots of people on the board who constantly complain about the lack of equipment and government parsimony (C-Q) have never paid tax in their life on anything other than summer jobs, I have a real job as does the wife and its bloody awful trying to make ends meet sometimes, sex is fun but kids are expensive. Tax payers are consumers, irish tax payers pay a hell of a lot in a country with an extremly high cost of living, and in the absence of a threat to the state from the Provo's or any foreign state, they will question the need for the defence forces. There won't be any European money for defence spending, the EU will tell us to piss off and pay ourselves does like everybody else does, if we ask, and there will be the need to provide properly trained and equiped units. Ultimatedly, there will be a reduction in the number of brigades, and more resources will be placed into a smaller force that will be equipped for peace support missions similar to traditional warfighting.

    Therefore, IMHO, the future composition of the defence forces its structure and equipment requirements should be discussed now, in the context of what the political and strategic situation will be like in ten years time. Like everything else, future equipment depends on the sort of missions the defence forces are going to undertake in the coming decade, in Europe and overseas. If we're going to join the coalition of the willing as an open partner, or take part in EU defence, neither of which are exactly fantasy ( Colin Powel stated that we were one of its un-named members) , things like MBT, battlefield reconnaissance vehicles, artillery, artillery location radars, UAVs similar to the American dragonfly, more APCs and military standard helicopters will have to be acquired.

    Apologies since this is entirely off thread
    Last edited by paul g; 6th June 2003 at 22:27.

  11. #36
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not off topic at all (apart from the 'sex is fun' bit :o )

    This is more or less the take I had on the issue, although I'd be dubious that we'd see the full range of combat arms in Irish service. More likely that a modularity of equipment would exists, whereby Irish Defence Forces would have a force structure tailored to operate with other, complimentary, Europan forces. So with, say, British Airpower, French ELINT ... its basically how we are expected to operate now in the RRF, with just a battalion of mech inf. Presume that we'd be expected to have more indigenous capability than we do now (which MBTs would give us on the cheap), but the key will be interoperability with other EU forces and training, training and training.

  12. #37
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's true Aidan , but in order to be interoperable and to train so that we are, we need more equipment then we do now, and we have to rethink our equpiment needs and structures. And while at brigade level we will be able to utilise the resources of other counties, eg French elint, at battalion level, we will have to provide our own equipment, and our battalions will have to be self-contained battlegroups. And there will be a diversion of men away from the army towards the air corps and naval service.

  13. #38
    John
    Guest
    This personnel reduction vs. more equipment seems to assume no change in funding. In a European Common Defence context, could 0.75% of GDP on defence continue, or would we have to spend more?

    There was a survey of defence spending published several months ago. Based on the number of personnel in the DF and on one indicator that tends to indicate technnological preparedness, the government underspends by abour Eur250 million. That is, to achieve an advanced, western defence force of 10500 personnel, the government should increase spending by Eur 250 million annually.

  14. #39
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    aBSOLUTEDLY CORRECT jOHN, THETS WHY THEY'LL CUT IT TO 8, 500

  15. #40
    John
    Guest
    But that would leave other countries will be contributing proportionately much more to a common defence. Would other countries accept that? What possible excuse would there be?

    Ireland is not seen as one of the poor countries anymore is it?

    http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/rc/hljuly.pdf

  16. #41
    Little Legionnare
    Guest
    Getting MBTs would be dumb. First the need to get a whole bunch of specielized equitment to support them. Second their weight makes them a bitch to have to transport. Third Helocopters are a more effective form of fire support/excort in my mind, and are the tanks of the future, and have a much higher survival rate.

  17. #42
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hvae you actually read all of this thread?
    Try reading it again and you'll find that your critiscisms have been discussed already.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  18. #43
    Little Legionnare
    Guest
    Sorry I did not see attack helos mentioned once yet am I missin' somethin'

  19. #44
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    I said your critiscisms not your suggestions
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  20. #45
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    C-Q..is that your handbag in the corner?

  21. #46
    6-40509-04014-7 yooklid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right behind you.....
    Posts
    2,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    No. CQ is far to refined to carry that thing which would only be carried by a denizen of Moore St. CQ is a Louis Vuitton woman.
    Meh.

  22. #47
    Potential Liability yellowjacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    53.175N 6.796W
    Posts
    3,790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just a gentle reminder of the topic of this thread:

    .
    .
    .
    With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

  23. #48
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is quite beautiful.

    All the details needed can be found here ...

    http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

  24. #49
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Every time I feel like slagging LL , I remember I'm just about old enough to be his father, (though I’m not ancient).

    John, as usual you raise a very interesting point, but they’ll find it difficult to justify 10,500 men in the long term, in view of the desperate need for equipment. More importantly, the defence forces has always gone for men rather than equipment, but the situation has changed. 2 infantry battalions and a cavalry squadron are tied up on border duties. As that decreases, and its difficult to envisage another Omagh, it will be hard to justify keeping those units existent (for example if the British demilitarize South Armagh, should Dundalk barracks be kept open, along with places like Cavan and the smaller posts? These closures will be tied into a wider deal and sold as part of the peace process, and the barracks along the border, all of which swallow resources are bound to close in the coming decade And coming from a business background, the defence forces were badly managed for decades, its like somebody in 1922 said, “right, we should have an army”, but nobody bother to think about it again until the Gleason era. Without being shot, is the FCA too big? lots of comparisons between it and the Territorial in the UK on the board, without the recognition that the Territorial army is only 40,000 strong, or less then half the size of the regular British army, Lots of mention of unfit members in the FCA, would we be better off with a reserve in the same proportion to the PDF as the British have? Ireland is in the age of the car, lots of reservists, especially the motivated ones, have access to a car, and could be paid mileage to attend training, and when you think about it, lots of them already do in rural areas. There are also too many barracks, and places like Kilkenny, Mullingar, Clonmel, swallow resources, and really not justifiable in military terms. There are also a lot of paper units, in reality the defense forces has one artillery regiment, equipment wise (24 L-118 = 3 8 gun batteries) , except that in theory it has three regiments, (Six counting the reserve), with three separate barracks, three officers drawing Lt Colonel salaries, when in reality it would survive with one regiment with four batteries) and to tell you the truth, might be better off. Does the cavalry corps need four barracks for four cavalry squadrons (Long ford, Cork, Dublin and the Curragh), or would one cavalry battalion with 2 reconnaissance squadrons and an armored regiment like the one I proposed with modern equipment at one or maybe two barracks be a better use of resources, especially as overseas deployments mean thinking about battalion sized task forces rather than at brigade level? While the seven battalions proposed by PWC were slagged off as decreasing resources, especially on this board, nobody does the simple math that the scheme would have given the PDF 21 infantry companies, compared to the existing 18, although only 7 lt. Cols in command compared to the present nine). Dare I say it, jobs for the boys? At the time of the first round of cuts, there was a lot of moaning from the officer corps who pointed out to the newspapers, that the PDF was going from 5 to 3 brigades, which was absolute bollix, the defence forces never had anything remotely like 5 brigades; they did however have 5 Brigade headquarters and 5 Brigadiers. Then again, I will freely admit that closing barracks is very difficult, I might think that keeping a barracks in Mullingar for example given that its down the road from Athlone, is pointless, I don’t live there, and realise that its closure would have the same economic effect in the region as closing a major factory.


    Secondly, how resources are spread also needs to be examined, as a former gunner, who thinks that all airmen are closet, if not completely open poofs, and all fighter pilots are challenged by an inadequate phallus, even I admit that the air corps needs to be bigger (more if the air defence option is explored) to provide an effective army. The naval service is crying out for at least four more vessels, but they cost a lot to buy, and need crew, they have to come from somewhere.

    Thirdly, is Ireland rich, where is the money to come from? You’ve got to remember that despite the hype about the Celtic Tiger, there is the whole GNP/GDP debate, sure, companies invest in Ireland, they do so because they pay such low levels of corporation tax, which although a major source of income in other European countries, isn’t a significant factor here; assuming you’re a PAYE tax payer whose resident in Ireland, you’ll know that personal taxation, and indirect taxes on consumer goods is very high. Ireland has a crappy infrastructure, it is going to be difficult to get people to pay for things like tanks, which while we know are necessary for training, aren’t really to the man in the street who has sick children. Other countries spend lots on defence, but if they draw it from a wider range of sources, in Ireland it means either drawing it from some other government department or putting up personal taxation, both of which would be political suicide for any government, even one with an overall majority of Blueshirts to the right of Goldie Fish.

    Personally, I think that the Europeans will ask us to provide an effective battalion group, with another one in reserve for deployment on 60 days notice, and won’t really care how we provide it, as long as we do. And if one of the ways that is provided is pruning our defence forces to make them leaner, then I for one think that there is some way to go for that, even though I realise that it would be very difficult to do. But there is a whole list of things that the defence forces will need, an artillery counter battery radar system like ARTHUR is a must, small UAV’s for FIBUA, sufficient helicopters for training ground troops and special forces, effective reconnaissance and fire support vehicles to support a mechanised infantry battalion, all of which are expensive and have to be paid for.

    Again apologies for being off topic

  25. #50
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    You make some strong points (including a number about swallowing our pride with regards to the size of the DF, and the old boys factor), I admit that most of my hypothesising about defence is based on a fictional future state with it's health and social services sorted out, sometimes in my my enthusiasm I forget that we are a good ten or twent y years away from infrastructure that could and should have happened in the 60's.
    Just one major critiscism, try if possible to keep your sentences short enough to fit in a standard window, its a complete bastard to read through sidewards and downwards scrolling text.
    The handbag thing I don't get.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

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
  •