PDA

View Full Version : overseas capability question...



ropebag
11th July 2006, 16:57
obviously i know this isn't going to happen, i'm not on crack or anything!

however, i wondered if you could provide a rough idea as to whether and for how long Ireland could send an Infantry battlegroup to say, Afghanistan.

650 strong infantry unit
engineer sqn
cavalry sqn
artillery battery
log spt
helicopter spt

operating under NATO logistic and air spt umberella.

could the PDF do it and if the RDF helped out what difference in sustainability would it make?

cheers.

ropebag
12th July 2006, 08:08
i was thinking more of the military capability rather than the political questions - mainly because i know that such questions could not be overcome.

i used the NATO standard battlegroup strength because any such mission would have to slot into a NATO system, therefore Irelands traditional battlegroup strength would be inapropriate.

DeV
12th July 2006, 18:00
Under the current Headline goal, the DF has the capability to deploy a Battalion Group (bigger than that proposed above) and sub-units of Combat Support / Combat Service Support units.

ropebag
12th July 2006, 21:16
Under the current Headline goal, the DF has the capability to deploy a Battalion Group (bigger than that proposed above) and sub-units of Combat Support / Combat Service Support units.

is that sustainable in the medium to long term - for say 3 to 5 years - with all the neccesary build up training, post tour leave, courses, track bashing as well as casualty replacements (say if an Irish battlegroup were suffering similar casualties to 3PARA in Afghanistan)?

additionally, could an Irish BG operate at the same tempo and conduct similar operations as 3PARA?

i'm asking because statistics and unit titles give an impression, but only inside knowledge could give an authorotitive answer.

DeV
13th July 2006, 17:16
It is policy. It is a mechanised (ie wheeled APC) based infantry unit.

This is potentially getting into sensitive information.

warlord
13th July 2006, 18:46
We could probably deploy as a once off 6 month deployment but there's no way we could extend beyond that, not with the way the DF is being currently maintained and equipped.

And anyone who thinks different is fooling themselves. Then there's the little problem of politics, there'll never be a politician who has the balls to send us to an AO where we might be involved in combat operations or take casualties.

ropebag
13th July 2006, 22:55
It is policy. It is a mechanised (ie wheeled APC) based infantry unit.

This is potentially getting into sensitive information.

i'm tempted to suggest that if Ireland's 8,500 strong regular Army can't produce a continuous 1500 man battlegroup able to conductt overseas service in adverse conditions then it has far greater problems than whether other people know that.

anyone who really wants/needs to know that information will do so anyway, any half-credible intelligence service will know through military attaches and SIGINT. somehow i suspect that the only reason the full (or almost full) capability isn't public knowledge is because its embarrassing.

DeV
14th July 2006, 18:50
I've now discovered that some information is in the public domain from the DF Annual Report 2005.

The Government has committed the DF to providing a pallete of forces under the Helsinki Headline Goal, all of which are on 30 days notice to move. The following combinations are offered:

Light Infantry Battalion (650)
Light Infantry Battalion Group (750)
Light Infantry Company (300)
ARW Pln (40)
NBC Platoon (30)
Truck Cargo Container Company (100)
CIMIC Team (30)
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams (10)
Augmentees (30)
Military Police (10)
Observers (20)
Press/Media Group (06)

In 2005, 21% of the members of the PDF (all ranks) spent sometime serving overseas. Don't forget these personnel are also required in Ireland for ATCP and other operations, courses, and the day-to-day running the DF.

Ireland doesn't nor is likely to have (in the short term at least) the capability to deploy a fully battlegroup as it doesn't have the necessary major equipment in suitable numbers. If it did we would all be paying a lot more tax.

Of all the EU nations, only 4 of the 13 battlegroups are made up a single nation (France, Italy, Spain and the UK) - interestingly they are also able to contribute troops to other multi-national battlegroups. We look likely to contribute niche capabilities (for the time being).

passerby
14th July 2006, 22:54
i'm tempted to suggest that if Ireland's 8,500 strong regular Army can't produce a continuous 1500 man battlegroup able to conductt overseas service in adverse conditions then it has far greater problems than whether other people know that.

anyone who really wants/needs to know that information will do so anyway, any half-credible intelligence service will know through military attaches and SIGINT. somehow i suspect that the only reason the full (or almost full) capability isn't public knowledge is because its embarrassing.

Neither embarrassing nor so ridiculous, actually. Think about it. If you had 1500 in theatre and 1500 in training to replace them, and 1500 on leave/repair and maintenance after coming back, not to mention, potentially and depending on the intensity of the operation, casualties suffered, people on sick leave or discharged due to injuries mental or physical, you wouldn't have many left to carry out the normal day to day roles of the DF, would you? Also, it is not likely that the DF would ever be committed to just one overseas operation, so there would be other people overseas (and again, others in training etc).

MOB87
14th July 2006, 23:55
Neither embarrassing nor so ridiculous, actually. Think about it. If you had 1500 in theatre and 1500 in training to replace them, and 1500 on leave/repair and maintenance after coming back, not to mention casualties suffered and people, you wouldn't have many left to carry out the normal day to day roles of the DF, would you? Also, it is not likely that the DF would ever be committed to just one overseas operation, so there would be other people overseas (and again, others in training etc).

This leads into the integration of reserve units to increase the numbers either doing day to day stuff or eventually going overseas. anyway the cap on overseas deployment is 850 at any one time.

ropebag
15th July 2006, 08:35
This leads into the integration of reserve units to increase the numbers either doing day to day stuff or eventually going overseas. anyway the cap on overseas deployment is 850 at any one time.

the 850 limit is political leash - it could be removed tomorrow given political will. is there an element of chicken and egg here: a political plaster on a military problem or a military problem caused by political objective?

if the 11,000(?) reservists were used to suppliment the regular forces both at home and overseas - even without the high tempo of the TA in the UK - then one imagines that a continuous 1500 strong battlegroup would be achievable.

Victor
23rd July 2006, 11:43
It is a mechanised (ie wheeled APC) based infantry unit.

Isn't it wheeled APC = motorised, tracked APC = mechanized?


the 850 limit is political leash - it could be removed tomorrow given political will. Political will needs finanacing.

DeV
23rd July 2006, 12:14
It depends on whose terminology you are using.

British Army's "Mechanised Infantry Battalions" are equipped with the wheeled Saxon APC.

fiannoglach
23rd July 2006, 17:04
Isn't it wheeled APC = motorised, tracked APC = mechanized?

I think these definitions were applied to Soviet/Warsaw Pact formations. Mechanised generally applies to any type of APC equipped troops.............OSOK

concussion
1st August 2006, 17:13
CIMIC Team (30)
Augmentees (30)


What are these?

Barry
1st August 2006, 17:22
CIMIC is Civil-Military Co-operation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIMIC

Augmentees are replacements for those who are injured/sent home.

passerby
29th August 2006, 21:39
Augmentees are replacements for those who are injured/sent home.

Augmentees are HQ-type personnel: staff officers, NCOs, clerks etc.

rod and serpent
29th August 2006, 23:00
could an Irish BG operate at the same tempo and conduct similar operations as 3PARA?

No.

Victor
31st August 2006, 14:23
additionally, could an Irish BG operate at the same tempo and conduct similar operations as 3PARA?Not enough parachutes. ;)

ropebag
19th September 2006, 14:11
hi,

i was wondering why the IDF [MOD: Assume that the writer means the Irish Defence Forces as against the Israeli Defence Force ] deploy in a smallscale manner among a large number of UN/NATO operations rather than taking a larger formation to one single operation?

it seems to me that in doing so Ireland weakens its potential voice in the international community. currently Irelands overseas deployed forces are 'a few here, a few there' - if Ireland decides to join an operation in this manner it gets little influence on the strategy of the op as a result, often because were it to leave that operation its contribution could easily be made up from the other contributing nations.

however, were Ireland's contribution to international peacekeeping to be in the form of a single Battalion Group-type formation it would have significant influence on the strategy of the force and potentially the writing of the resolution. in addition because Ireland might well be acting as the 'linch-pin' of a particular operation it would then have increaced influence on issues unconnected with that operation - by dint of being able, should it be so exercised - to pull out of its existing commitment and then have the UNSC to find yet another battalion Group-type formation, and possibly a new 'lead nation'.

hypothetical example: Ireland is a lead nation in a new UNSC authorised force in Darfur with a highly mobile battalion group, it is one of a very few western, first world militaries involved due to overstretch within NATO, other participating nations send mostly poorly trained, immobile and poorly equiped troops.

firstly, Ireland, declaring itself willing to commit such forces, gets a big say in the resolution and the subsequent strategy setting and planning - as well as the political kudos for treading where NATO is unable.

a US resolution is tabled at the UNSC over Iran - its bellicose, accusatory and looks like being an excuse for war. Ireland doesn't fancy a Nuclear Armed Iran, but the text of the resolution is waaaay too much, so Ireland says that if the resolution in its current form is passed by the UN it will be unable to continue UN operations in Darfur, forcing the US and its allies on this issue to choose between three potential outcomes; a) going ahead and finding another western nation prepared to act in Darfur, b) going ahead and seeing the failure of the Darfur mission when the Irish withdraw, or c) reducing the obvious war-like tone of the resolution to accomodate Irish political opinion while succeding in Darfur without having to find another 900 well trained, well equiped troops and a new lead nation.

with the current set-up, when was the last time anyone was forced to take Irish opinion into account?

DeV
19th September 2006, 21:32
The DF has a battalion minus 1 company with UNMIL (with a company provided by Sweden - it helps it force reserves are multi-national), a Company group (reinforced company) is also deployed in Kosovo. A battalion minus would be a major unit.

As it stands at any one time around 8% of the DF (not just the army) are overseas at any one time. Another 8% are in training to be deployed and another 8% have just returned. Therefore at any one time 24% of the DF are at various stages of being deployed overseas.

The only people who have real influence in the UN Security Council (those that come up with the resolutions) is those with a veto - US, UK, France, China, and what Russia call themselves these days). Ireland tried to get a permanent seat (and veto) and failed. If anyone of the permanent members disagree with a resolution - it doesn't happen.

Using your above example we would actually be contributing less troops.

Goldie fish
19th September 2006, 21:49
Wasn't there a similar topic to this some time back?

I definitely remember dev answering something similar before...

ODIN
19th September 2006, 22:10
I believe it was posted by the same poster aswell....and turned quite walterish

ropebag
19th September 2006, 22:25
Wasn't there a similar topic to this some time back?

I definitely remember dev answering something similar before...


that - if it was a topic i posted - was what can Ireland do, this is why does Ireland do what it does in the manner it does.

Turkey
19th September 2006, 22:30
that - if it was a topic i posted - was what can Ireland do, this is why does Ireland do what it does in the manner it does.


It was you , same question differet side, 'does not justify a new thread........have fun.

Tank
20th September 2006, 15:01
Because to do what you are suggesting would require major resources in terms of finance, which no government is willing to put in at the moment. Also, in order to get the manpower to sustain such a mission the reserves would be needed on duty, and that would mean a signifiacnt labour force problem for the economy. And as the economy is what drives this country and pays our wages, no right htinking politician is going to sacrifice voter satisfaction for a bit of power politics in the UN or elsewhere.

passerby
24th September 2006, 18:14
Ireland tried to get a permanent seat (and veto) and failed.

News to me - when did this happen?

passerby
24th September 2006, 18:31
hypothetical example: Ireland is a lead nation in a new UNSC authorised force in Darfur with a highly mobile battalion group, it is one of a very few western, first world militaries involved due to overstretch within NATO, other participating nations send mostly poorly trained, immobile and poorly equiped troops.

This is not so dissimilar to the situation in which Ireland and Sweden are in in Liberia, and they have not exactly become world powers as a result.

The idea of Ireland being able to use its small (it will never be anything else) peacekeeping contribution to dictate e.g. what the US does on Iran is not very realistic, to say the least. As Dev has pointed out, those with the real influence in the Security Council are the five Permanent Members, the countries with the power of veto. If contributions to UN peacekeeping gave the sort of influence that is being suggested, Bangladesh (which currently tops the list of contributors, supplying almost as many peacekeepers as the authorised strength of the Irish DF - http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2006/august06_2.pdf) would be a superpower.

DeV
24th September 2006, 19:30
News to me - when did this happen?

Ireland was elected on the Security Council by the General Assembly in 1962, 1981/2 and most recently 2001/2.

The Permanent Representative of Ireland to the UN has been appointed as Co-Chair of the General Assembly Working Group on UN reform.

---------------------------
General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9146 45th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1996


JOHN CAMPBELL (Ireland) said the number of both permanent and non- permanent seats should be increased to enhance the effectiveness of the Council and provide a more equitable geographic representation. In addition to Germany and Japan, Ireland and other countries would be appropriate candidates for new permanent seats based on their economic and political status. Ireland also supported new permanent seats for Africa and Asia, as well as Latin American and Caribbean countries. In addition, the curtailment of the veto should be an intrinsic element of any overall solution.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/1996/B/un961755.html

passerby
25th September 2006, 07:15
General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9146 45th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1996
JOHN CAMPBELL (Ireland) said the number of both permanent and non- permanent seats should be increased to enhance the effectiveness of the Council and provide a more equitable geographic representation. In addition to Germany and Japan, Ireland and other countries would be appropriate candidates for new permanent seats based on their economic and political status. Ireland also supported new permanent seats for Africa and Asia, as well as Latin American and Caribbean countries. In addition, the curtailment of the veto should be an intrinsic element of any overall solution.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/L/1996/B/un961755.html

Thanks for the reference. I do not think that this remark qualifies as Ireland trying and failing to get a permanent UNSC seat - I am sure that John Campbell (at the time Ireland's Permanent Representative to the UN) was just making the point that a whole host of countries, not just Germany and Japan (the main challengers for permanent status) would be appropriate candidates.

I do not think that Ireland has ever seriously suggested that it should have a permanent seat on the Security Council, being content to serve as a non-permanent member on the basis of normal rotation, which in practice means every twenty years or so.

DeV
25th September 2006, 17:46
I remember hearing it on the news at the time as well.

mutter nutter
1st October 2006, 02:51
off topic a bit, but are there still Irish troops in Afghanistan, it's just I saw a photo today of the suicide boming, guy in what looked like Irish DPM,:confused:

edited for image
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/4530/irishafghanyw1.th.jpg (http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=irishafghanyw1.jpg)
the caption on the photo said they were Italian, but that looks like Irish DPM, and if you look carefully, an Irish tricolour

ODIN
1st October 2006, 17:56
one of them is Irish for sure, you can just make the Tri Colour out on the left shoulder!!!

Victor
13th November 2006, 14:09
a US resolution is tabled at the UNSC over Iran - its bellicose, accusatory and looks like being an excuse for war. Ireland doesn't fancy a Nuclear Armed Iran, but the text of the resolution is waaaay too much, so Ireland says that if the resolution in its current form is passed by the UN it will be unable to continue UN operations in Darfur, forcing the US and its allies on this issue to choose between three potential outcomes; a) going ahead and finding another western nation prepared to act in Darfur, b) going ahead and seeing the failure of the Darfur mission when the Irish withdraw, or c) reducing the obvious war-like tone of the resolution to accomodate Irish political opinion while succeding in Darfur without having to find another 900 well trained, well equiped troops and a new lead nation.Do you really think the Americans care about Darfur enough to make them alter their policies on Iran?

ZULU
13th November 2006, 17:12
the caption on the photo said they were Italian, but that looks like Irish DPM, and if you look carefully, an Irish tricolour

Italian flag, Irish Flag - low quality photo= mistaken?

http://www.analisidifesa.it/images24/P1010015-22.jpg

DeV
22nd July 2007, 13:23
According to the new annual report the DF palette of forces is being updated:

Infantry Brigade Headquarters (150) from 2010
Logistics Battalion Headquarters (50) from 2008
Light Infantry Battalion Group (750)
Light Infantry Company (300)
ARW Pln (40)
Field Artillery Battery (80)
Reconnaissance Unit (80) from 2009
Medium Transport Unit (60)
Medium Truck Pallet Cargo (60)
CBRN Decontamination Unit (30) from 2008
CIMIC Group (30)
CIMIC Tactical Elements (25)
EOD/IEDD Team (5)
EOD/IEDD Team (CBRN) (5) from 2008
Military Observation Team (12)
Operations Liaison Reconnaissance Team (10)
Military Provost Marshall Office (10)
Military Police Detachment (10)
Media Operations Unit (6)

hptmurphy
12th August 2007, 23:39
Intersting in light of whats been discussed in another thread there is no cav component.Is it comming to pass the cav as a unit are not deployable with their current lack of suitable vehicles.

womble
13th August 2007, 00:22
Intersting in light of whats been discussed in another thread there is no cav component.Is it comming to pass the cav as a unit are not deployable with their current lack os suitable vehicles.

would it not be the
Reconnaissance Unit (80) from 2009
unit murph, no??

Goldie fish
13th August 2007, 06:16
The Cav is not JUST Reconnaissance. Light Armoured or Close target would also be mentioned.

womble
13th August 2007, 08:37
The Cav is not JUST Reconnaissance. Light Armoured or Close target would also be mentioned.

I've been trying to tell Murph that elsewhere but am having difficulties arguing the point in a decent way. twas mister murphy i got the impression from that the cav were focusing on the recce role.
tis all very confusing

hptmurphy
13th August 2007, 09:10
The Cav is not JUST Reconnaissance. Light Armoured or Close target would also be mentioned

Light armoured Reconnaisance and Close target Reconnaisance...will you ever get the picture!!!!!!

thebig C
13th August 2007, 12:26
Is a Light Infantry Company with 300 personnel a bit on the big side?