White Paper - When is it due to be published?

[ropebag]

...can see it now!!! wait..... it... it was all a dream :(

no, don't stop, i'm nearly there....

[SwiftandSure]

no, don't stop, i'm nearly there....

Drones and increased SOF budgets..

......now go wipe yourself off and shut the door on the way out.

[Banner]

"......now go wipe yourself off and shut the door on the way out."

Ahhhhhhh ....... nice - thanks for that :-)

[SwiftandSure]

It's beginning to sound a lot like the White Paper is going to be an unambitious dream sheet, written by the unwilling, published by the unknowing and heavily dependant on how much length Defence is capable of taking from Finance.

[DeV]

imagine the cost and personnel savings of only having to administer 1,2 or 3 sites instead of 20...

when Catterick is finished, it will be home to 25,000 people - thats pretty much the size of the whole DF and their families, so it can always be done...

If each brigade was centralised in 1 barracks it would mean purchasing land (unless 1 Bde was to go to Kikworth and then you'd lose much of the training area which would see more use) - land is expensive much more expensive than running a barracks.

It would be a nice situation to be in to have all Bde units in 1 loc but it would have a payback period measured in decades!

Just my tuppence worth in relation to The Army and Armour and APC shortages and “Ghost units” with no equipment.

We have by any standard a very small to tiny Army.
It’s understrength as it is with I think 7 infantry Battalions ? on paper that can probably muster approx. 400 personel per battalion. (shouldn’t they be over 600 troops per battalion? )

Idea being that a up to establishment strength RDF brings them up to that kind of figure.

Furthermore there are only two Cavalry sqdrns (1 each per Brigade) and a separate Tank sqdrn with 14 obsolete scorpions.
Additional each Brigade has engineering, Mp’s Artillery (incl Air defence) units etc etc.

It’s my honest opinion that if we are to have a 2 Brigade structure (And I believe for a whole load of reasons that we SHOULD have a 2 brigade structure but that’s a different argument) anyway if we are to have a 2 Bgde structure then they should have a Mech company Per battalion and a fully equipped Cavalry Sqdrn. There should be associated ancillary vehicles, storage facilities, garages etc in EACH brigade area.

Stop the pretending to have 2 Bgde’s when we don’t even have enough equipment for 1. Get on with it and make sure they are fully equipped as 2 all arms light infantry brigades.

It’s a tiny force it wont cost the earth to equip it properly.

No one is talking about buying up heavy armour for the All new 1st Leinster and 1st Munster heavy Tank Divisions here. I just cant get my head around a tiny force with just 2 Cav Sqdrns that don’t even have equipment between them. Despite all the progress made recently this is a completely laughable situation!

+1

It's beginning to sound a lot like the White Paper is going to be an unambitious dream sheet, written by the unwilling, published by the unknowing and heavily dependant on how much length Defence is capable of taking from Finance.

A WP is Government policy that it will then seek to resource over time. If it's Government policy then Finance have to look at it favourable. Finance will also have a look at it at the Cabinet table (if not before).

Look at the previous WP, there was a few new departures, some groundbreaking. Many were implemented, some weren't. Some couldn't be.

[The real Jack]

Before people get too excited talking about enough cars for a coy in each bde there isn't even enough ****ing trucks ffs. Units routinely have to borrow trucks to have enough for coy gp ex's!

[DaithiDub]

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2.../?oref=d-river

A couple of reasons ireland should not be dictated by a un resolution

The year before (1994) the US did the same thing, refusing to call Rwanda genocide. But hey, that's all down the memory hole when it comes to NATO.

[DaithiDub]

It's beginning to sound a lot like the White Paper is going to be an unambitious dream sheet, written by the unwilling, published by the unknowing and heavily dependant on how much length Defence is capable of taking from Finance.

I read through it and see:

Drones! (Everyone will want some)
Re-announcing the replacement of old ships as 'investment' (just like the hospital ward trick, beloved of TDs).
Further land and barracks sell-off.
More helicopters?
Hey! we came up with an excuse for no jet interceptors! Or more armour. Or bigger ships. Because laptops and IT courses in Trinners *cost money*.
Also yes, a lot more surveillance of Irish Internet users, and you can be sure that we'll be handing this over to any English-speaking intelligence agencies who ask for it.

'The greatest fear in Ireland is that sensitive State information will be hacked and deliberately leaked or that critical economic assets, such as major US multinationals, could be targeted.'

We could do with more leaking of 'sensitive State information' in this jurisdiction, I think, rather than less.

[expat01]

It appears that the DoD Spin machine is already in full gear with a surprising focus on "cyber warfare". I know it's early yet and I'm trying so very hard not be sceptical but would it not be more important to try and recover some of the savage cuts to the DF budget in the last few years rather than try to "ring-fence" current Defence spending.

If the budget stays the same then "Pumping money" into Cyber warfare means less resources for the already underfunded other areas which are currently being run on a shoe-string.

Cyber warfare. Really?
I stand by to be corrected but I would be more than a little surprised to learn that the DF has spent the time and resources required to develop a significant skillset base in this area. I will flat out call you a liar if you tell me the DF has ever to this point attracted, or considered recruiting, anyone because of a significant interest or skillset in this area.
And if the DF can afford to either attract or develop a meaningful cyberwarfare section, then I want a flight of gripens and a FREMM frigate to go.

[ropebag]

Cyber warfare. Really?
I stand by to be corrected but I would be more than a little surprised to learn that the DF has spent the time and resources required to develop a significant skillset base in this area. I will flat out call you a liar if you tell me the DF has ever to this point attracted, or considered recruiting, anyone because of a significant interest or skillset in this area.
And if the DF can afford to either attract or develop a meaningful cyberwarfare section, then I want a flight of gripens and a FREMM frigate to go.

actually, Ireland has a significant connection to Cyber warfare - loads of Irish punters and owners, trainers and riders go to Cheltenham races every year.

like others, i'm hugely cynical - i just don't see what military or civil base of knowledge/operations this is supposed to building from. the even more cynical voice in my head tells me that 'Cyber' could be 6 blokes in portakabin stealing jokes from Twitter, and its a lot cheaper than a dozen Gripens...

[Pure Hover]

Cyber warfare. Really?
I stand by to be corrected but I would be more than a little surprised to learn that the DF has spent the time and resources required to develop a significant skillset base in this area. I will flat out call you a liar if you tell me the DF has ever to this point attracted, or considered recruiting, anyone because of a significant interest or skillset in this area.
And if the DF can afford to either attract or develop a meaningful cyberwarfare section, then I want a flight of gripens and a FREMM frigate to go.

That's my point Expat1 - this announcement probably came as much of a surprise to the military as it did to me and you! It's classic spin and a fudge for dealing with the real issues of the day. Boosting military intelligence - really? Protecting military sensitivities is one thing but are the military going to become the watchdog for the whole Government and what kind of resources will this require? The indo article even threw in the U.S. Multi-nationals for good measure although I fail to see where the DF responsibility lies in this regard.

[na grohmiti]

It appears that the DoD Spin machine is already in full gear with a surprising focus on "cyber warfare". I know it's early yet and I'm trying so very hard not be sceptical but would it not be more important to try and recover some of the savage cuts to the DF budget in the last few years rather than try to "ring-fence" current Defence spending.

If the budget stays the same then "Pumping money" into Cyber warfare means less resources for the already underfunded other areas which are currently being run on a shoe-string.

What this means is that the DF will finally accept that the internet is the most popular means of communication worldwide and ignoring it and preventing its employees from using it, is no longer a valid option in terms of security.

[pym]

It's odd seeing articles about an increase in mil intel When the official site and blurbs don't mention intel beyond the battlefield ISTAR role.

[DeV]

That's my point Expat1 - this announcement probably came as much of a surprise to the military as it did to me and you! It's classic spin and a fudge for dealing with the real issues of the day. Boosting military intelligence - really? Protecting military sensitivities is one thing but are the military going to become the watchdog for the whole Government and what kind of resources will this require? The indo article even threw in the U.S. Multi-nationals for good measure although I fail to see where the DF responsibility lies in this regard.

Announcement it's an article in the paper based that is a bit informed

Look will everyone (including the lazy journal) just read the link I posted, it will inform you of the lines of what is being proposed.

What this means is that the DF will finally accept that the internet is the most popular means of communication worldwide and ignoring it and preventing its employees from using it, is no longer a valid option in terms of security.

In fairness, the DF network is more than likely very secure for that reason but it also means that it's capability to cater for all is limited

[DeV]

FF Defence manifesto/version of WP

http://fail.3cdn.net/766c09150e2599d03a_58m6b268h.pdf