Scorpion replacment?

[DeV]

The 105s could do with a relatively inexpensive upgrade in order to be deployed effectively

There are very few modern 6x6/8x8 APCs mounting a 90mm (or bigger). There could be reasons for and against.

But if the Scorpions are to be replaced I’d be firmly of the opinion that it must be a MOWAG variant

[X-RayOne]

The 105s could do with a relatively inexpensive upgrade in order to be deployed effectively

What issue with them needs an overseas upgrade??

[na grohmiti]

The 105s could do with a relatively inexpensive upgrade in order to be deployed effectively

There are very few modern 6x6/8x8 APCs mounting a 90mm (or bigger). There could be reasons for and against.

But if the Scorpions are to be replaced I’d be firmly of the opinion that it must be a MOWAG variant

Simple reason behind that. Unless you are an actual tank, if you fire a single big loud round against a hard target, revealing your location (as a recce force) to all nearby, modern countermeasures will have you destroyed before you can get the second round off. Wheeled AFV weapons are there to shoot and scoot. Not Stalk and shoot. That's the anti armour detatchment's job.

[DeV]

What issue with them needs an overseas upgrade??

Something like LINAPS, it wouldn’t be essential but offer advantages

Simple reason behind that. Unless you are an actual tank, if you fire a single big loud round against a hard target, revealing your location (as a recce force) to all nearby, modern countermeasures will have you destroyed before you can get the second round off. Wheeled AFV weapons are there to shoot and scoot. Not Stalk and shoot. That's the anti armour detatchment's job.

Yes and often those 30mm recce vehicles (in conventional warfare at least will be near friendly tanks, obviously we don’t have any).

Maybe there is an argument as part of a Scorpion replacement for 1ACS to be equipped with MOWAG MRVs and MOWAGs with a LRATGW (ie longer range than Javelin).

However, adding another missile to the inventory????

[morpheus]

We only have 3 missile types in the entire military... whats the big deal?

[GoneToTheCanner]

@na gromiti, staying concealed is all very well for recce work but a lot of the current DF work abroad is staying highly visible in white vehicles. With regard to gun versus missile, cost is a major factor and the DoD/DoF is always on permanent overwatch when it comes to DF spending. I'd rather have a 90mm gun on a familiar platform, with a projected service life of thirty years, than a missile system that costs (insert supposed cost here) and has a very finite life, ie, missile time-ex'd after five or ten years. I'd love to see the faces on the DoD people if the Irish started squirting off Javelins like they were going out of fashion, in some dusty place against some toerag who's got a troop of technicals and wants to go head to head. "you spent how much??!!"

[DeV]

We only have 3 missile types in the entire military... whats the big deal?

So adding a small number of a new type is a huge percentage increase and a high life cycle cost

A 90 is also more versatile

@na gromiti, staying concealed is all very well for recce work but a lot of the current DF work abroad is staying highly visible in white vehicles. With regard to gun versus missile, cost is a major factor and the DoD/DoF is always on permanent overwatch when it comes to DF spending. I'd rather have a 90mm gun on a familiar platform, with a projected service life of thirty years, than a missile system that costs (insert supposed cost here) and has a very finite life, ie, missile time-ex'd after five or ten years. I'd love to see the faces on the DoD people if the Irish started squirting off Javelins like they were going out of fashion, in some dusty place against some toerag who's got a troop of technicals and wants to go head to head. "you spent how much??!!"

+1

I was actually thinking longer range than Javelin

[DeV]

It would appear that an extended range version of Javelin (>4 km) is being worked on (not sure if fielded yet)

[expat01]

While I'm mightily annoyed at the DF's habit of writing and rewriting doctrine to make all they plan to do reflect the minimum equipment level we think the DoD will permit, MBTs are a bit of a stretch at the moment. Conceptually, not practically - even Singapore has tanks. Asking the DF to incorporate an entirely new doctrine to the cavalry is a generational job.
If they are ever contemplated, it has to be a leopard or better. Not a cast-off that's on the replacement track.

Fire support for overseas missions does seem a no-brainer though and I really wonder why artillery are not brought to the field. On most of the Irish Army's ops they could stay happily dug in at camp. Whatever about tanks (always nice but the French AMX10RC seemed to hit the spot in Mali) an army that doesn't have artillery and deploy it is not an army, its a gendarmerie. I hate saying that where gun bunnies can hear, but it's true.

[DeV]

While I'm mightily annoyed at the DF's habit of writing and rewriting doctrine to make all they plan to do reflect the minimum equipment level we think the DoD will permit, MBTs are a bit of a stretch at the moment. Conceptually, not practically - even Singapore has tanks. Asking the DF to incorporate an entirely new doctrine to the cavalry is a generational job.
If they are ever contemplated, it has to be a leopard or better. Not a cast-off that's on the replacement track.

Fire support for overseas missions does seem a no-brainer though and I really wonder why artillery are not brought to the field. On most of the Irish Army's ops they could stay happily dug in at camp. Whatever about tanks (always nice but the French AMX10RC seemed to hit the spot in Mali) an army that doesn't have artillery and deploy it is not an army, its a gendarmerie. I hate saying that where gun bunnies can hear, but it's true.

Irish doctrine says nothing of the sort

We aren’t invading former lands that isn’t to say that patrols fire support available. But remember we are talking UN mandated PSOs. Generally they aren’t engaged in combat ops.

The artillery we have doesn’t have precision capabilities and therefore wouldn’t be suitable.

A direct fire gun is a much better option.

Also remember that the UN would have to agre

[X-RayOne]

The artillery we have doesn’t have precision capabilities and therefore wouldn’t be suitable.

A direct fire gun is a much better option.

Partially disagree Dev....arty support not about single round precision type fire support.....although accurate, fast indirect support is a definite.

Think about alot of previous missions; east timor, liberia, chad, even Golan now. Lots of patrolling in sparcely populated, non built up areas. Accurate arty support for a screen, smoke, etc. to allow a dis-engagement in contact, prevent opposition forces advancing across an area would be hugely beneficial. Doesn't need to be laser guided super missiles, just accurate spread to cover required area.

Yes direct fire would be great too....but probably better in areas where damage, casualties need to be limited, i.e. built up areas, taking a point target, etc. As it is 30mm and 40mm grenade launchers can handle that to an extent.

[expat01]

Irish doctrine says nothing of the sort

We aren’t invading former lands that isn’t to say that patrols fire support available. But remember we are talking UN mandated PSOs. Generally they aren’t engaged in combat ops.

The artillery we have doesn’t have precision capabilities and therefore wouldn’t be suitable.

A direct fire gun is a much better option.

Also remember that the UN would have to agre

So no mortars of any description then.
You aren’t engaged in combat ops until you are, and it isn’t necessarily a choice you make. If 120s are available, why not 105s? Kept in the rear as a standby, a very effective force multiplier.

I would agree that direct fire is preferable. But we don’t have any effective direct fire capability so it doesn’t matter whether the UN agrees or not. My point about artillery is that we have it, we train to use it and if a mission allows large calibre weaponry we can bring it to bear without purchasing new vehicles.
First prize would be a wheeled vehicle with a 105.

[DeV]

Partially disagree Dev....arty support not about single round precision type fire support.....although accurate, fast indirect support is a definite.

Think about alot of previous missions; east timor, liberia, chad, even Golan now. Lots of patrolling in sparcely populated, non built up areas. Accurate arty support for a screen, smoke, etc. to allow a dis-engagement in contact, prevent opposition forces advancing across an area would be hugely beneficial. Doesn't need to be laser guided super missiles, just accurate spread to cover required area.

Yes direct fire would be great too....but probably better in areas where damage, casualties need to be limited, i.e. built up areas, taking a point target, etc. As it is 30mm and 40mm grenade launchers can handle that to an extent.

Remember we are talking UN mandated forces not the advance into Iraq. It is a point absolutely but you seriously think the UN ROE would allow indirect unguided munitions to be used? Even in thinly populated areas you only have to get it wrong once

SMK and ILLUM (as used by 120s with UNIFIL) possibly but HE no way

[expat01]

Remember we are talking UN mandated forces not the advance into Iraq. It is a point absolutely but you seriously think the UN ROE would allow indirect unguided munitions to be used? Even in thinly populated areas you only have to get it wrong once

SMK and ILLUM (as used by 120s with UNIFIL) possibly but HE no way

It has already happened, in the Congo last year.

[DeV]

It has already happened, in the Congo last year.

With the intervention Bde who are a combat tasked formation

[expat01]

My point is that UN operations do not preclude the possibility.
And the French have 155 self-propelled guns in UNIFIL.

So in this decade the UN has:
a) permitted the deployment of heavy artillery and low-level AA missiles in UNIFIL
b) ordered aggressive combat operations to seek and destroy rebel forces in the DRC.

This is no longer "yer daddy's UN", aimed at nobody's daddy in particular.

[DeV]

My point is that UN operations do not preclude the possibility.
And the French have 155 self-propelled guns in UNIFIL.

So in this decade the UN has:
a) permitted the deployment of heavy artillery and low-level AA missiles in UNIFIL
b) ordered aggressive combat operations to seek and destroy rebel forces in the DRC.

This is no longer "yer daddy's UN", aimed at nobody's daddy in particular.

Absolutely but it doesn’t mean they have to be Irish guns either

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be and neither is the State (a Fd Arty Bty is part of the Irish palette of forces offered)

[morpheus]

There were 105s in chad werent there? dutch?

[EUFighter]

There is a wheeled option which might be a good upgrade and that is the NEMO 120mm turret which the Finns have fitted to their AMV's. This will also fit onto a Piranha IIIH and is not only a indirect mortar but can be used in a direct fire mode if necessary. Range is not the same as a 105 or 155mm tube but is a flexible option.
https://www.patria.fi/en/products-an...mortar-systems

[EUFighter]

It would appear that an extended range version of Javelin (>4 km) is being worked on (not sure if fielded yet)

Last year in testing by the British they achieved hits at 4.3km

Forgot to say that the Javelin was mounted to a M151 RWS, so two things we have already just joined together, even if the RWS is modified.

[EUFighter]

Its not as if other countries don't do it. The most obvious example would be the UK and BATUS. A more niche one of a small country that literally doesn't have the space to do things is Singapore - The SAF have hired a former NZAF bombing range for training and conduct training exercises for their land forces in Taiwan every year.

Training space has to do with the size of the country and the population density, Singapore is small, smaller than Louth and a population density of nearly 8000 per km2. But we only have to look at the other divided island in the EU: Cyprus to see something more realistic. In their National Guard they have 82 T80's and 52 AMX30's and even with their small island which is only 1/8th of our and a density of 123 per km2 (double ours) and yet they find space to train! Just to give some extreme values England has a pop density of 431 per km while Leitrim has 20 per km. So if we even did have the funds and the will we would be able to find and develop a suitable training area.

[na grohmiti]

You mean Cyprus which never actually stopped being involved in a war with Turkey in the 60s? Cyprus which has a DMZ enforced by the UN running the length of the island?
Great comparison there.

[EUFighter]

The comparison about Cyprus was not linked to potential threat but to land mass and population density in relation to training areas for tanks and other mechanised forces. The example of Singapore had been given, but Singapore is extremely small, they do their major training off island. Although even Singapore which a population just a bit bigger than ours and a land mass 1/80th of ours still manage to have some training areas within their borders. There is always the excuse we do not have the training areas for this or that, and yes the current training areas and bases are not suitable. But that is not to say it would be impossible if we did support the DFs more. This goes not only for tanks but also if we ever wanted to fire the 105's at full charge this is a bit tricky even today in the glen. God forbid we ever get our hands on some 155mm howitzers which is now the standard for a lot of countries.

The point is we have a relatively large land mass with for north west European country a low population density and in some counties an extremely low population, just do the maths. I am well aware that the chances of the DF ever getting their hands on a modern MBT is less than your or my chances of both winning the lottery but if they did then it is also possible that space to train could be found. Moving the army out of inner city barracks design for an army of occupation into purpose built bases with an adjacent training areas located in a derived rural areas would in itself be a big step forward.

As for Cyprus and Turkey at war since the 60's here there needs to be a fact check. 1960 after a war against the British the island gains independence (except for some bases which even today are still British). There was then inter-communal fighting between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (between Cypriots) and it was to maintain peace between these two communities that UNICYP was set-up. Following several coups by the Cypriot National Guard the last one in 1974 and fearing that there would be an annexation of Cyprus by Greece (then under a military junta) the Turks invaded. We could discuss if they were right or not for years but legally they were not. The fight was over relatively fast given the size and power of the Turkish military plus if they went further there would have been an issue with those British bases and at that time the British forces were still a force to be reckoned with.

To say that Cyprus and Turkey are at war since the 1960's is pushing it a bit far. As millions of tourist can testify Cyprus is a peaceful place to visit, divided but peaceful. To try and suggest that Cyprus could go up against Turkey in a conventional war would be like us trying in the 1920's militarily to take over Northern Ireland. The number do not stack up. The 130 or so tanks that the Cypriots have would be destroyed in the first day by the large and modern Turkish Air Force and everyone knows this. When they tried to get some air defence in the form of the S300 systems there was so much diplomatic pressure that in the end Greece ended up getting they systems.

[expat01]

Every reason for why the defence forces does not need, cannot get or could not use/maintain any given bit of kit is utter nonsense bar one: we don't want to spend the money

[na grohmiti]

The comparison about Cyprus was not linked to potential threat but to land mass and population density in relation to training areas for tanks and other mechanised forces. The example of Singapore had been given, but Singapore is extremely small, they do their major training off island. Although even Singapore which a population just a bit bigger than ours and a land mass 1/80th of ours still manage to have some training areas within their borders. There is always the excuse we do not have the training areas for this or that, and yes the current training areas and bases are not suitable. But that is not to say it would be impossible if we did support the DFs more. This goes not only for tanks but also if we ever wanted to fire the 105's at full charge this is a bit tricky even today in the glen. God forbid we ever get our hands on some 155mm howitzers which is now the standard for a lot of countries.

The point is we have a relatively large land mass with for north west European country a low population density and in some counties an extremely low population, just do the maths. I am well aware that the chances of the DF ever getting their hands on a modern MBT is less than your or my chances of both winning the lottery but if they did then it is also possible that space to train could be found. Moving the army out of inner city barracks design for an army of occupation into purpose built bases with an adjacent training areas located in a derived rural areas would in itself be a big step forward.

.

Lets ignore the elephant in the room that is Turkey's continued claim on northern Cyprus and just be logical for a second.
I am quite familiar with the geography of this island. You seem to know it only from a map. You can divide it into 3 types. Field, bog or mountain.
Anyone who has read John B Keane or even watched the movie will be familiar with the value the irish hold to their fields. Even the current training areas are used to graze livestock when not in use. The DoD will not lease, let alone buy large areas of field for military use while it is currently trying to rationalise its property portfolio. To create Kilworth in the latter end of the 1800s, the authorities had to evict entire villages to make room for what was then just an infantry training area. This turned the local population which was then very pro British to anti in the space of a few years. You talk of population density in pure statistical terms, but you will find that the more remote a residence is, the less likely it is that they will abandon it. You cannot convince the average rural landowner that their land is required for a greater military purpose. That won't wash here. Do so and you will be reminded that the landowners own grandfather fought off the largest military force in the world at the time training only on bogside and mountain.
The irish bogs are something protected by the EU Habitats directive. If the local landowners are now prevented from cutting turf on bogs they had ownership of for generations, do not expect to get approval to drive armour accross them, should you manage to procure a vehicle capable of same.
This leaves us with the mountains. Some are rolling rounded hills, with bogland found on the lower portions. Vehicular traffic is possible only with off road motorcycle, quad or 4x4 using prepared tracks. Venture too far off the tracks and you'll be testing your recovery vehicle. Othes are more extreme gradients, with vast boulder fields and rocky outcrops hidden under bracken and rhododendron. Again not suitable for vehicle. There has been numerous instances recently of hillwalkers having to be rescued by helicopter, having become disorientated within the rhododendron.
In summary our terrain is unique compared to other nations in that we lack Prarie or Steppe, which is most useful for training with armoured vehicles. The Curragh plains being the only exception. The only reason our neighbours have use of Dartmoor to such extent is it was owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, i.e the crown. Even then the use of the moor comes under close scrutiny and regular review.

Of the main training areas we have the Kilworth mortar range has not been used in at least 20 years, and private housing has continued to be built closer to the perimeter, restricting expansion. The accomodation there saw major upgrade in the last 10 years, but again the presence of the main Cork-dublin motorway nearby restricts greatly further expansion to the west.
Military training on the curragh is restricted greatly by numerous environmental preservation rules, and annoying neighbours, who insist on walking in the no go zones when live firing is happening, just to make a point.
The Glen of Imaal, a bog surrounded by mountains, also has neighbours who seem surprised that military vehicles may pass their house at ungodly hours to engage in loud military training as has been done since the 19th Century. Indeed the military were quite active here in 1798 and many of the roads in the area were built to facilitate their movement. The bogland here can also hinder artillery shoots, as many rounds land in the bog and do not explode, until they are disturbed much later, usually by passing hillwalkers.
In short we are lucky to have what we have.