Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You probably ought to tell the airlines that, because they're happily accepting firearms and ammunition as hold baggage.
I shouldn't really reply here on my mobile. I get distracted midway through a post and forget to finish it before clicking "post".
This was the reason intimated in the article.
A major barrier to flying the officers home commercially was their weapons. They could not bring them home on a commercial flight nor could they leave them behind unattended.
The question is, why did whoever spoke to the IT tell them something that is demonstratively untrue?
DOD lying because they didn't want to fork out for Air France tickets and whatever 'local fees' were required? DOD/DF talking out of their arse through shere ignorance?
The case for airlift has been in evidence since Ireland started contributing to UN missions - sometimes it's more acute and public, and sometimes less so, but it's always been there. If cabinet decides that the need no longer exists because the headlines have gone away, then that's a political problem - and one journalists can help you with, if you let them, and if you help them....
Remember in one of the African trips (Maybe Chad, but could have been Liberia) when there was early on identified a woeful lack of airlift of any sort. So "someone" decided to hire a civvy company whu used old MIL Mi-8 helis, painted white. An investigation found they were just about airworthy but should never have been anywhere near the operational area.
Are the Italians still operating in Lebanon with their Hueys?
It seems, when it comes the the UN at least, they will take what they can get. If our government are so keen for UN brownie points, then acquire proper air lift aircraft, and rotate them to whatever UN mission needs them, with crew and basic support, and you can say you participated in another mission, without having to go through triple lock. Everyone wins.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
The simple fact is that no available capability to withdraw personnel from whatever hell-hole somebody thinks it's a good idea to go to, should never get passed an initial mission risk assessment. If we want to deploy on these missions, we must possess a capability to get out in a hurry. Or don't go.
We are assuming that they were handed into the French. There is a very small French contingent with MONUSCO (7 personnel).
The hoops you have to jump through to get DG on an aircraft is unreal (If you aren’t exposed to it on a regular basis). Now remember we are talking about 2 personnel who chances aren’t DG qualified (never mind having access to the correct packaging, labelling, DG note in theatre!, even with reach back to Ireland it has to be in theatre). Especially when time is critical. Even then the pilot has the right to refuse DG cargoes. So what would the 2 soldiers do then, wave off their lift home because they just found out at boarding that their weapons cannot travel. The right decision was made.
Strange though they we are now talking about sending their replacements (3 Officers this time) into the same theatre.
Remember in one of the African trips (Maybe Chad, but could have been Liberia) when there was early on identified a woeful lack of airlift of any sort. So "someone" decided to hire a civvy company whu used old MIL Mi-8 helis, painted white. An investigation found they were just about airworthy but should never have been anywhere near the operational area.
Are the Italians still operating in Lebanon with their Hueys?
It seems, when it comes the the UN at least, they will take what they can get. If our government are so keen for UN brownie points, then acquire proper air lift aircraft, and rotate them to whatever UN mission needs them, with crew and basic support, and you can say you participated in another mission, without having to go through triple lock. Everyone wins.
In fairness, the mission should have air assets in place for use by all contributing nations especially for CASEVAC. They are a force not a contingent asset.
Also in fairness, in this particular case I’d say it was someone trying their best to make sure the guys doing the job were covered. The can do approach.
The simple fact is that no available capability to withdraw personnel from whatever hell-hole somebody thinks it's a good idea to go to, should never get passed an initial mission risk assessment. If we want to deploy on these missions, we must possess a capability to get out in a hurry. Or don't go.
We can also not rely on the UN to provide us with proper logistic needs. The condition of the vehicles that were sent to Chad when they arrived there, and back home after was an eye opener.
"Hi guys, heres €2m worth of vehicle, can you ship it to central africa?"
"No problem, my mate has a truck that we use to collect wood in the jungle, it should be fine for your vehicles, once the journey isn't too long"
"To Douala?"
"Er, where in Chad is that?"
"It's in Cameroon"
"Have you much to be moved?"
"not much, just 208 TEU, and 75 Trucks, Jeeps and Armour"
"You might be better off flying it out?"
"no need, sure doesn't your mate have a truck?"
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
In the case of the Mi-8s mentioned, hiring firms with Mi-8s proved easy enough but they were not equipped with crashworthy seats and were rejected for that reason. I'd say you'd have a job to find any Mi8s or Mi-17s with such seats for hire anywhere in Africa,outside of government sources. Ironically,it had not been a problem in the past, especially when said Mi-8s were escorted by Mi-24s.
Pilots are entrusted with Diplomatic bags held in the cockpit with them, Could the weapons being placed in a "diplomatic bag" in this case?
It theoretically could, but you'd need to the diplomatic service of X country to take possession of them, stick them in, take it to the airport, and put it on a carrier that flew that nations flag - or was a close ally/client.
I think the fundamental problem here is that the weapons weren't the problem that someone in DOD is making them out to be: you can take weapons on commercial flights (you need the carrier's permission of course), and I'm afraid that any diplomatic service in country will have just told the Irish to render the weapons inoperable, and to throw them in a river/dump truck/wet concrete.
This weapons issue is only an issue - assuming it was, and I don't - because, guess what, the IG made it an issue. No one else would give a shit about a couple of rifles/pistols disappearing into the DRC as a side consequence of getting your people back.
What do people think that the inevitable bribes paid are going to buy? Only a fool would think it would be cuddly toys for children.....
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment