Commission on Defence - what we actually know.

[EUFighter]

Is the time now come to assume that the DoD has finally managed to get the CoDF Report finally brushed under the carpet at least in terms of LoA 2 & 3?

[Fantasia]

Is the time now come to assume that the DoD has finally managed to get the CoDF Report finally brushed under the carpet at least in terms of LoA 2 & 3?

No but there is limited info that I can share. Very significant progress is under way on a huge number of the projects that have fallen out of the CoDF report. There are 4 that may never actually see fruition, like CHOD but most of the other ones have either started or are about to start.

It should however be noted that started or about to start can have pretty humble beginnings. The DF is being pretty insistent that until the conditions are in place for a project to be started, including the right people in the right place, that a project will not be considered started.

[DeV]

No but there is limited info that I can share. Very significant progress is under way on a huge number of the projects that have fallen out of the CoDF report. There are 4 that may never actually see fruition, like CHOD but most of the other ones have either started or are about to start.

It should however be noted that started or about to start can have pretty humble beginnings. The DF is being pretty insistent that until the conditions are in place for a project to be started, including the right people in the right place, that a project will not be considered started.

Seconded and very much the right approach

Although the DF needs LOA2 extremely urgently, there simply isn’t the people implement it

a lot of background work on some matters has been done in fairness

[na grohmiti]

Is the time now come to assume that the DoD has finally managed to get the CoDF Report finally brushed under the carpet at least in terms of LoA 2 & 3?

Based on the ministerial briefing, absolutely not.
Why is it people assume that if there is no fighter jets queued up on the taxiway in Bal after 6 months, its all a failure?
LOA2 is as it always was, in 2028. We have to build up to it. Many of the recommendations are quietly being followed through. We have to start from LOA1, which we were just barely at.

LOA3 was never happening before 2030, no matter what. Considerable debate was identified as being required first.

[A/TEL]

No but there is limited info that I can share. Very significant progress is under way on a huge number of the projects that have fallen out of the CoDF report. There are 4 that may never actually see fruition, like CHOD but most of the other ones have either started or are about to start.

It should however be noted that started or about to start can have pretty humble beginnings. The DF is being pretty insistent that until the conditions are in place for a project to be started, including the right people in the right place, that a project will not be considered started.

I would consider the CHOD along with CHON, CHAF, CHA a necessity if the organisation is to change.

[Jaque'ammer]

Based on the ministerial briefing, absolutely not.
Why is it people assume that if there is no fighter jets queued up on the taxiway in Bal after 6 months, its all a failure?
LOA2 is as it always was, in 2028. We have to build up to it. Many of the recommendations are quietly being followed through. We have to start from LOA1, which we were just barely at.

LOA3 was never happening before 2030, no matter what. Considerable debate was identified as being required first.

Massive problem in Ireland where people do not realise that change is difficult and takes time. It just encourages duct tape solutions that are visible to the electorate vs actual structural change.

[trellheim]

Why might CHOD ( out of all the other recommendations ) not see the light of day ? . Interesting to see other perspectives. From my own point , although I fully accept that some of the recommendations will take a long time to implement, others should be far more immediate . Buying a radar tomorrow wont work without a lot of additional capability. Also what ever happened to the White Paper projects ? Are they all scrapped now or is it just DADT

Take for example our own history, RDFRIP took 5 years and didnt do a lot, the biggest single change BY FAR came in the 2012 reorg. The 2005 change from FCA to RDF began the long slow withdrawal from the countryside which is still happening 18 years later.

[na grohmiti]

Way off topic I know, but I'm reminded of the consultation that took place, the proposals put forward, and the meetings after RDFRIP happened. Then the 2012 reorg happened in the blink of an eye, justification: FEMPI.

[DeV]

https://assets.gov.ie/244604/28880b1c-d503-490c-a1e1-da4b117bae1c.pdf

DoD Ministerial Brief December 2022

well worth a read

[EUFighter]

https://assets.gov.ie/244604/28880b1...4b117bae1c.pdf

DoD Ministerial Brief December 2022

well worth a read

It is necessary to read and when it come to things like equipment replacement it is straight back to WP2015 (8 years old almost) and even there we see slippage like on the replacement of the CPV's. The two IPV from New Zealnd is not what was needed, have they underwater IED capability etc???? There is always "lets push it down the line" and no real movement on the Comissions report. Look at the NS, the report was proposing an expansion yet is the priliminary planning application in? Remember how many decades our planning process requires!

Most of the recommendation that mean real change have not been accpeted. Out of the 150 only 43 have been accepted and the rest push down the line. Ohh no way we could commit to have a jet fight in 2035, that a different government will have to do. The fact is the next government will do the same and when we get to 2035 whoever is in power then will say "ahh it's too late now to do anything".

During the consultation phase there was a lot of engagement and hope that something might change. That engagement and associated pressure needs to be setted up. Even if it is only "The Journal" reporting of some grouping saying how ill equipped we are. Cyber for one should have been a no-brainer but even there it progresses at an abacus!

[DeV]

It is necessary to read and when it come to things like equipment replacement it is straight back to WP2015 (8 years old almost) and even there we see slippage like on the replacement of the CPV's. The two IPV from New Zealnd is not what was needed, have they underwater IED capability etc???? There is always "lets push it down the line" and no real movement on the Comissions report. Look at the NS, the report was proposing an expansion yet is the priliminary planning application in? Remember how many decades our planning process requires!

Most of the recommendation that mean real change have not been accpeted. Out of the 150 only 43 have been accepted and the rest push down the line. Ohh no way we could commit to have a jet fight in 2035, that a different government will have to do. The fact is the next government will do the same and when we get to 2035 whoever is in power then will say "ahh it's too late now to do anything".

During the consultation phase there was a lot of engagement and hope that something might change. That engagement and associated pressure needs to be setted up. Even if it is only "The Journal" reporting of some grouping saying how ill equipped we are. Cyber for one should have been a no-brainer but even there it progresses at an abacus!

my thinking on revert to Government etc is that it is kind of tell us what you want later on / give us a chance to do some of the low hanging fruit or the more complex projects / we need more money

A few quotes:

”It was agreed at SMC that 26 projects would be merged with the CoDF implementation process with a further 5 to be progressed as standalone projects and a further 5 to be closed with the remaining 7 to be further reviewed.”

“Prior to the decision to acquire a fourth new OPV, the White Paper had provided that the two Coastal Patrol Vessels, LÉ Ciara and LÉ Orla, were to be replaced with similar vessels with countermine and counter- IED capabilities, the relevant White Paper project (no. 29F) is currently paused. Two Inshore Vessels have been purchased from the New Zealand Government to replace LÉ Orla and LÉ Ciara in the interim, it is expected that these vessels will be transported to Ireland by mid- 2023 following the completion of a programme of works.”

you are also forgetting the Equipment Development Plan

[na grohmiti]

It is necessary to read and when it come to things like equipment replacement it is straight back to WP2015 (8 years old almost) and even there we see slippage like on the replacement of the CPV's. The two IPV from New Zealnd is not what was needed, have they underwater IED capability etc???? There is always "lets push it down the line" and no real movement on the Comissions report. Look at the NS, the report was proposing an expansion yet is the priliminary planning application in? Remember how many decades our planning process requires!

Most of the recommendation that mean real change have not been accpeted. Out of the 150 only 43 have been accepted and the rest push down the line. Ohh no way we could commit to have a jet fight in 2035, that a different government will have to do. The fact is the next government will do the same and when we get to 2035 whoever is in power then will say "ahh it's too late now to do anything".

During the consultation phase there was a lot of engagement and hope that something might change. That engagement and associated pressure needs to be setted up. Even if it is only "The Journal" reporting of some grouping saying how ill equipped we are. Cyber for one should have been a no-brainer but even there it progresses at an abacus!

Why do you think they were not needed? The fact is these vessels were in the pipeline long before CoDF sat, unfortunately it took longer to get them over the line due to Covid etc, but they are not intended for the C/IED role, they are a response to an immediate need for P40 replacement vessels, brought on by Brexit, and the fact we share the Irish sea now with an 3rd Country. An EU frontier just appeared east of Dublin.
I read the same document you did, I hear from those in the know what is ACTUALLY going on behind the scenes. It won't make the headlines, it is happening. No need to be so negative.
There is a process. We may want things to happen sooner, but that is not how this works. NOTHING in the CoDF recommendations has not been accepted. Nothing. That's quite an achievement.

Its the 2nd week of January. Nothing happens in January. Wait for ministers PQs, that will tell us what progress has been made. Thats how this works.

[meridian]

Thanks to everyone for their input after I posted about the CoDF in early January, great to hear that there are positive things going on in the background. Michael Martin taking questions on Thursday morning (Feb 2nd), may or may not get an update on the next steps...

[EUFighter]

Why do you think they were not needed? The fact is these vessels were in the pipeline long before CoDF sat, unfortunately it took longer to get them over the line due to Covid etc, but they are not intended for the C/IED role, they are a response to an immediate need for P40 replacement vessels, brought on by Brexit, and the fact we share the Irish sea now with an 3rd Country. An EU frontier just appeared east of Dublin.
I read the same document you did, I hear from those in the know what is ACTUALLY going on behind the scenes. It won't make the headlines, it is happening. No need to be so negative.
There is a process. We may want things to happen sooner, but that is not how this works. NOTHING in the CoDF recommendations has not been accepted. Nothing. That's quite an achievement.

Its the 2nd week of January. Nothing happens in January. Wait for ministers PQs, that will tell us what progress has been made. Thats how this works.

The P40s may have been old but were there maintenance issues? If my memory serves me correct the reason for taking them out of services was lack of crew. True the Lake class have a core crew of 24 compared to the Peacok's 39 but the vessels are half the size and a much lower top speed.

[Jaque'ammer]

The P40s may have been old but were there maintenance issues? If my memory serves me correct the reason for taking them out of services was lack of crew. True the Lake class have a core crew of 24 compared to the Peacok's 39 but the vessels are half the size and a much lower top speed.

They're nearly 40 year old vessels...