Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Potential troop missions

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    From my sketchy memory, there was a time when we could provide APC and mobile fire support by way of M3 and AML 90, as part of the FMR in UNIFIL. The Bn overseas also had its own HQ staff, and deployed the 120 mortar and other heavy support weapons. Meanwhile, at home we had three infantry battalions on the border, all with APC, and there was still enough APC, in each command for training and operations locally.
    How could we do it then?
    But only really overseas mission, UNIFIL. The SISUs were used with UNIFIL from 1989 prior to that there were 14 Panhard of the 60 there (not sure how many of the 60 were command versions).

    Remember we don’t have the number of MOWAG APCs now because of the CRV conversions we don’t have enough for a full APC Bn. We also have 2 major missions were they are deployed.

    Also the strength of the DF was 13,000+ at the time

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
      An interview with a recently returned ARW officer suggested that the MINUSMA mission would be ideal for the DF.

      If I'm not mistaken, strength has been on a sliding scale every year for the last decade.

      It'll be a long, long time before we see another 1000 troops in uniform.

      What is possible is doing a force protection job with a Coy sized contingent. Would reduce the need to bring in armour etc, assuming it is provided by other nations.
      We shouldn’t deploy anyone anywhere without armour (unless the terrain doesn’t suit it) thats basic force protection

      Comment


      • Probably the best we could do is take over from the Polish (is it a Coy that they provide when it is us as the main nation?)

        Comment


        • In the past 20 years the needs for troop protection has changed more then in the 50 years before. The Land Rover of old has changed into the Mowag Eagle with a V-shaped hull and coming in at nearly 10t fully loaded. The nations who provide the vast majority of troops has now firmly become the poorer countries like Nepal or Bangladesh. A quick look at any UN missions soon shows up where they get the majority of foot soldiers and it is not from us.

          So what does the UN need and what could we provide? And then how does that reflect on the make-up of our defence forces?

          As in almost every military operation the key is logistics, and no matter that we have some of the best troops in the world their logistical footprint is much larger than that of those from other nations. True our logistical footprint is much smaller than for a US soldier but it is still large. So what is the added benefit that Ireland can bring in the future to such a mission that it is worth the additional logistical effort?

          A good example is UNDOF where we provide the FRC. This is the "heavy" element of the force, the element that is called in when the going gets tough like with the Filipino troops a few years back. It is a high end capability that is of great added value to the force. So do we want to be the primary provider of long range ISTAR? We need to define what our future role in overseas missions is going to be.

          The current minister has long expressed his view that we should be doing more overseas and not with his second hat of FA that has only been reinforced. And a look around the map show plenty of areas where a new mission might pop-up; Syria, Yemen, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, the list is long. It might not be a thing of numbers but of capability.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            In the past 20 years the needs for troop protection has changed more then in the 50 years before. The Land Rover of old has changed into the Mowag Eagle with a V-shaped hull and coming in at nearly 10t fully loaded. The nations who provide the vast majority of troops has now firmly become the poorer countries like Nepal or Bangladesh. A quick look at any UN missions soon shows up where they get the majority of foot soldiers and it is not from us.

            So what does the UN need and what could we provide? And then how does that reflect on the make-up of our defence forces?

            As in almost every military operation the key is logistics, and no matter that we have some of the best troops in the world their logistical footprint is much larger than that of those from other nations. True our logistical footprint is much smaller than for a US soldier but it is still large. So what is the added benefit that Ireland can bring in the future to such a mission that it is worth the additional logistical effort?

            A good example is UNDOF where we provide the FRC. This is the "heavy" element of the force, the element that is called in when the going gets tough like with the Filipino troops a few years back. It is a high end capability that is of great added value to the force. So do we want to be the primary provider of long range ISTAR? We need to define what our future role in overseas missions is going to be.

            The current minister has long expressed his view that we should be doing more overseas and not with his second hat of FA that has only been reinforced. And a look around the map show plenty of areas where a new mission might pop-up; Syria, Yemen, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, the list is long. It might not be a thing of numbers but of capability.
            Most of the West and the big 5 have traditionally been unwilling to provide troops to the UN especially in the last 30 years.

            The only country of the big 5 in the top 20 troop contributors is China and is in 9th place with 2541

            Italy is the only Western country in the top 20 with 1088 and 19th place

            Now in fairness a lot of the money to run the UN comes from the West put they can’t call on countries to deploy and not lead by example. And that includes Ireland!

            https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/de...ranking_32.pdf




            With regards to contribution of specialists. Yes we have them but small numbers, which means if we deploy a large number (who are also required on other missions) then the max we could do would be 2 rotations.

            If we look at any upcoming op like Chad that requires a lot more funding and remember the DF had approx 1,000 personnel back then.

            One way of doing it of course (and possibly could get some EU funding for) would be the proposed Institute of Peace Support & Leadership Training in the Curragh to replace UNTSI. But it needs to be resourced.


            Of course the European Defence Fund possibly makes more participation in EU missions a possibility
            Last edited by DeV; 22 December 2020, 12:06.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              With regards to contribution of specialists. Yes we have them but small numbers, which means if we deploy a large number (who are also required on other missions) then the max we could do would be 2 rotations.

              If we look at any upcoming op like Chad that requires a lot more funding and remember the DF had approx 1,000 personnel back then.
              It means looking deep into what we want the DF to provide as contributions to overseas missions and then developing the forces in that direction. This would mean that the "jack of all trade approach" would have to stop. The Army would have to concentrate on those areas in which it would in the future provide a value added function. It might be that we will provide EOD specialist, more military engineers, or IT/comms etc. But that would then mean some areas/corps might be reduced or eliminated like Arty.

              Will we ever deploy the 105's overseas? Is there a scenario were we will use the 105's at home? If the answer is no to both, then they could go, and the resources be put into those areas we want to develop. Of course if the financial resources were massively expanded then things would be different. We need a clean sheet approach, what do we want to do and how then do we develop it. It is not trying to put a square peg in a round hole, that is possible but it leaves a lot of gaps.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                It means looking deep into what we want the DF to provide as contributions to overseas missions and then developing the forces in that direction. This would mean that the "jack of all trade approach" would have to stop. The Army would have to concentrate on those areas in which it would in the future provide a value added function. It might be that we will provide EOD specialist, more military engineers, or IT/comms etc. But that would then mean some areas/corps might be reduced or eliminated like Arty.

                Will we ever deploy the 105's overseas? Is there a scenario were we will use the 105's at home? If the answer is no to both, then they could go, and the resources be put into those areas we want to develop. Of course if the financial resources were massively expanded then things would be different. We need a clean sheet approach, what do we want to do and how then do we develop it. It is not trying to put a square peg in a round hole, that is possible but it leaves a lot of gaps.
                That is never how it will work and nor should it be. The primary role is to defend the State from armed aggression. The Government have decided to do that based on the light infantry based all arms model and PK/PS ops are completed using that used capacity.

                We need to equip and man to achieve that primary role and then we will have the right mix.

                That mix could include the option to deploy a light utility flight, a light artillery battery, etc

                The UNSAS palette for Ireland was (public domain):
                Inf Bde HQ - 150 - M
                Logs Bn HQ - 50 - H
                Light Inf Bn - 750 - H (including Coy VH)
                Fd Arty Bty - 80 - H
                Recce Unit - 80 - VH
                Medium Truck Pallet Cargo Unit - 60 - H
                Medium Transport Unit - 60 - H
                SOF Unit - 40 - VH
                CBRN Decon unit - 30 - H
                CIMIC Group - 30 - H
                CIMIC Tac Elements - 25 - H
                EOD/IEDD Team - 5 - H
                CBRN EOD/IEDD Team - 5 - H
                Mil Observer Team - 12 - VH
                Ops Liaison Recce Team - 10 - VH
                Mil Provost Marshal Office - 10 - H
                MP Detachment - 10 - H
                Media Ops Unit - 6 - H


                VH is <20 days
                H is 21-60 days
                M is 61-90 days


                I haven’t seen the UNPCRS one for Ireland but the size of the estimate is still 850 afaik
                Last edited by DeV; 22 December 2020, 18:14.

                Comment


                • These documents show what the UN wants from units under PCRS
                  https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...5D87221488C%7D


                  The also publish what they are looking for every couple of months:
                  https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...5D87221488C%7D

                  The latest one is from November:
                  https://pcrs.un.org/_layouts/15/Wopi...action=default

                  All we could provide would be a QRF Coy to the Force Intervention Bde of MONUSCO (for the Force Intervention Bde, in other words offensive ops, which may not be politically acceptable)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    These documents show what the UN wants from units under PCRS
                    https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...5D87221488C%7D


                    The also publish what they are looking for every couple of months:
                    https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...5D87221488C%7D

                    The latest one is from November:
                    https://pcrs.un.org/_layouts/15/Wopi...action=default

                    All we could provide would be a QRF Coy to the Force Intervention Bde of MONUSCO (for the Force Intervention Bde, in other words offensive ops, which may not be politically acceptable)
                    These only reinforce my point, what the UN has problems sourcing is not foot-soldiers but higher end resources. In almost ever mission it lacks helicopters, not just transport but also attack helicopters. In times past many were supplied from the former USSR, but this supply has dried up. My point was we should restructure to be better able to fill the gaps and if that is offensive ops then so be it. UN ops are not just all smiles and candy bars. And it is not that more armour or helicopters would not be welcomed for the primary mission of the defence of the state.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      These only reinforce my point, what the UN has problems sourcing is not foot-soldiers but higher end resources. In almost ever mission it lacks helicopters, not just transport but also attack helicopters. In times past many were supplied from the former USSR, but this supply has dried up. My point was we should restructure to be better able to fill the gaps and if that is offensive ops then so be it. UN ops are not just all smiles and candy bars. And it is not that more armour or helicopters would not be welcomed for the primary mission of the defence of the state.
                      The first link shows what is required for those units, we have a unit but not suitable equipped, AW139 is not medium lift.

                      A better conventional equipped DF (or be it still light Inf based) can do more on UN that’s my point.

                      I can’t see the Government or the Dail approving

                      Comment


                      • The topic is potential, so in the future, this IMHO should not be just what we can do tomorrow but also next week. Yes we have the AW-139s and yes they do not meet the requirements of the UN for medium lift helicopters, neither does the UH60 (most likely as the spec is based upon a Mil-8 (-17 etc). But is this something we could and should aspire to provide? Is it something that should be included in the Commission on Defence, in their considerations. Given that the minister has stated his wishes for more overseas deployments is it likely that this will influence the recommendations?

                        As for "light infantry", we need to get with the 21st century, there are modern light infantry units, they are all characterised by being highly mobile. We don't even have enough trucks to move troops let alone helicopters or armoured vehicles. Looking around Europe it is easy to spot a "light infantry" unit, they normally have in their designation; Jager (or the local variant), they are airmobile, mountain, marine, commando etc. A good example of an integrated "light infantry" is a USMC MEU. Each has around 2,000 troops & airmen, around 30 LAV/AAV's, 6x M777, 60x JTLV, not something too far from what we could possibly field but the difference comes in their air component: 4-6 Vipers, 3 Hueys, 12 Ospreys, 4 CH53s, 6 AV8B/F-35B and 2 C-130s. It is the combination of the ground and air units that gives a MEU its flexibility and mobility, to be able to fight in a modern battlefield. It would probably taken nothing more than a single MEU to wipe out the entire DF. This is as it could bring overwhelming fire power to the fight in the place of its choosing. So by all means we can have a "light infantry" force but it should be equipped as befits a modern unit.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          These documents show what the UN wants from units under PCRS
                          https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...5D87221488C%7D


                          The also publish what they are looking for every couple of months:
                          https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...5D87221488C%7D

                          The latest one is from November:
                          https://pcrs.un.org/_layouts/15/Wopi...action=default

                          All we could provide would be a QRF Coy to the Force Intervention Bde of MONUSCO (for the Force Intervention Bde, in other words offensive ops, which may not be politically acceptable)
                          The FIB are the least deployed asset in any UN mission. Send out the FIB today in one sector and have UN casualties in another sector tomorrow in retaliation. The commanders of the FIB even refuse to deploy their assets for the protection of the rest of the contingent

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fantasia View Post
                            The FIB are the least deployed asset in any UN mission. Send out the FIB today in one sector and have UN casualties in another sector tomorrow in retaliation. The commanders of the FIB even refuse to deploy their assets for the protection of the rest of the contingent
                            Isn’t the FIB only in MONUSCO?

                            Understandably to a degree

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              The topic is potential, so in the future, this IMHO should not be just what we can do tomorrow but also next week. Yes we have the AW-139s and yes they do not meet the requirements of the UN for medium lift helicopters, neither does the UH60 (most likely as the spec is based upon a Mil-8 (-17 etc). But is this something we could and should aspire to provide? Is it something that should be included in the Commission on Defence, in their considerations. Given that the minister has stated his wishes for more overseas deployments is it likely that this will influence the recommendations?

                              As for "light infantry", we need to get with the 21st century, there are modern light infantry units, they are all characterised by being highly mobile. We don't even have enough trucks to move troops let alone helicopters or armoured vehicles. Looking around Europe it is easy to spot a "light infantry" unit, they normally have in their designation; Jager (or the local variant), they are airmobile, mountain, marine, commando etc. A good example of an integrated "light infantry" is a USMC MEU. Each has around 2,000 troops & airmen, around 30 LAV/AAV's, 6x M777, 60x JTLV, not something too far from what we could possibly field but the difference comes in their air component: 4-6 Vipers, 3 Hueys, 12 Ospreys, 4 CH53s, 6 AV8B/F-35B and 2 C-130s. It is the combination of the ground and air units that gives a MEU its flexibility and mobility, to be able to fight in a modern battlefield. It would probably taken nothing more than a single MEU to wipe out the entire DF. This is as it could bring overwhelming fire power to the fight in the place of its choosing. So by all means we can have a "light infantry" force but it should be equipped as befits a modern unit.
                              Modern military that is a super power in fairness.

                              The only viable alternative would be Mech Inf based or just more than we currently have

                              Comment


                              • Potential new EUTM mission to Mozambique on the cards

                                also talk of a new EU rapid reaction Bde sized force

                                both have Irish backing

                                https://euobserver.com/world/151790?...m_medium=email

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X