Unprincipled neutrality is neutering our defence forces

OS119

Unprincipled neutrality is neutering our defence forces


Tuesday September 16 2008

Commandant GarryMcKeon has issued a timely warning about the woeful logistical deficiencies of the Army in its Chad deployment. So, if you believe in the power of prayer, then I bid you grind your kneecaps to the gristle in order to end this mission without loss. However, that wish offered, the problem with such a benign outcome is that we will, once again, learn nothing from it, and will still smugly declare that the negotiating skills of Irish soldiers are the best in the world, and that our peacekeepers are without peer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Soldiers are not armed diplomats, nor are they nurses with guns, nor uniformed social workers who salute one another. Yet in the popular perception, Irish soldiers are seen as a miraculous blend of that pious trinity. Thricefold wrong. Soldiers are members of armies, whose first particular duty is to obey orders; the second is to train to kill, and the third is to kill. And one of the central and defining features of any national army worth its name is that it's capable of a robust defence of its national territory. Another is that it can, unaided, get from its base to its operational area, where it can then fend for itself for the duration of the mission.

So only the most elastic and meaningless definition of the term "army" -- one which also includes Salvation and Barmy -- would include the land component of our Defence Forces. Whereas I genuinely believe the men and women of our Defence Forces to be the very cream of Irish life, merely because I respect them more than I can say, and merely because they wear the uniform of the Republic, does not mean that they are what they are palpably not.

It is not an air force which cannot put up a single combat-fighter, it is not a navy which cannot defend a single square nautical square mile of territorial waters against armed threat, and it is not an army which cannot, unaided, rapidly project its power across the national territory. Thus, the Defence Forces cannot properly be called the "Defence Forces" without the earlier consumption of hallucinogenic substances.

Though, if our soldiers really want know what it is to take a hallucinatory drug, but without breaking the law, all they have to do is to join the Chad mission. For when they arrive in N'Djamena airport, they can admire the Lockheed C-130 Hercules of the Chad Air Force. And that pretty much sums it all up. Chad, with a GDP of Bohola, Co Mayo in a wet February, and with an average annual income of that fine place during the Black Death, can afford Hercules aircraft. We, amongst the richest countries in the world, cannot apparently afford a single strategic transport aircraft for the Air Corps.

And this accords with a wholly frivolous definition of "defence", which has existed throughout the history of the State. Indeed, the very first concession in the Treaty negotiations -- actually during the opening session -- and never analysed by historians as a measure of this intended "independence", or rejected by anti-Treatyites, was an abandonment of any pretence that our territorial waters would be guarded by us. What kind of "republic" is it which has studiously declined to mind its own seas?

The first Congo Mission, nearly 50 years ago, depended upon USAF C-124 Globemaster IIs collecting our troops at Baldonnel. So naturally, that hero of the left, Noel Browne, denounced the use of American aircraft, declaring that we should depend on our own resources to get our men to the Congo. We had, of course, no such resources and still haven't. Better still, Noel Browne would probably have been one of the first to have opposed the creation of a grown-up air force, with proper air-defence and troop-carrying capacities.

Half a century on, and we still expect others to carry our soldiers into theatre. This is not merely degrading, it also has created a whingeing dependency culture of querulous, poser-nationalist scrupulosity. Thus, a Fianna Fail minister for defence not long ago refused to fly in a UN aircraft when he discovered that the aircrew were RAF.

Moreover, this failure to create an air force has generated a diseased naivety. When Tony Blair came here, the Defence Forces imported a surface-to-air missile to protect him from airborne terrorist attack, but without creating a command structure to fire it. So, a light aircraft enters a prohibited zone; in the absence of a fighter-plane to intercept and make visible signals to force it to land, or to turn, who was to order the plane to be shot down over a heavily-populated Dublin city centre? One military expert dryly suggested that the Army Chief of Staff, the Attorney-General and the Garda Commissioner would have to be perched on the rooftop, alongside the missile-operator (Advice 1. Shoot! Advice 2. DON'T SHOOT! Advice 3. Call a tribunal! Followed by sighs all round).

Underlying this defencelessness is a childish addiction to the concept of an utterly unprincipled neutrality i.e. defenceless. This is called virtuous in Ireland, but parasitic elsewhere, and, as the RAF/UN episode shows, not merely parasitic, but picky too.

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

a rather interesting article - your views?

Morlar

I think he makes some very valid points re defence forces underfunding and lack of equipment. Re air force, navy and lack of troop transports it is a joke if we have to rely on other countries to move our troops around. I think the next step down will be to charter a ryanair flight.

Dyr

its true to an extent about the air corps but undoubtedly the army top brass are looking to find a new role for themselves to justify the armys size now that norn iron is on the back boiler. Our neutrality probably doesnt sit too well with their ambitions.

Evd-Burner

That makes us look like twits.

Its like hey GB any chance of a lift?
Reply: No sorry were too busy.
Ok Fair enough, cheers anyway.

Hey France any chance of a lift?

lostexpectation

we don't need c130 to defend ireland, his whole articles fails on this point

Morlar

lostexpectation wrote: »

we don't need c130 to defend ireland, his whole articles fails on this point

He didnt actually say that we 'need a C130 to defend Ireland'.

How should they get to warzones/hotspots for peacekeeping duty ?

Or do you think that they should just simply not engage in peacekeeping activity ?

lostexpectation

he was talking about defending ireland, the point of the peacekeeping missions is we never do that on our own, so some other country can come up with air transport or we rent one like they've they done, the let down is with the international partners not the irish military.we don't need to buy such a plane. unless you telling us a c130 would be useful for in ireland operations.

what about troop transport helicopters,that wouldn't be bad idea, how many can our biggest helcicopter hold

magick

we could buy some EX soviet stuff, now i know thats not exactly what western powers do, but im sure theirs a lot of transport aircraft that some countries would be willing to sell for cheap

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

we don't need to buy such a plane.

They don't need to loan you one, either.

NTM

Morpheus

Its simple.

Ireland permanently has roughly 800 soldiers deployed all year every year.

They need equipment supplies spares etc ferried to these remote locations.

A C130 transport plane would allow us to know that should we need to get something from here to there we can load up the aircraft and send it instead of hiring/renting someone elses kit. This means you KNOW you will get something to someone who needs it when they need it and NOT when someone ELSE makes equipment available.

This country always thinks in the short term instead of long term, we are well capable of handling a large aircraft like a herc in ireland, they can land on virtually any sized airstrip too so we COULD use it within the country easily.

It has a longer range than the CASA and could augment them in the maritime surveilance role. but I would prefer to see it with a green role only.

here are some interesting characteristics:

c-130J Super Hercules

Data from USAF C-130 Hercules fact sheet[14] The International Directory of Military Aircraft, 2002-2003 [15]

General characteristics

Crew: 3-6 (at least 2 pilots, crew chief, and 1 loadmaster; additional loadmaster and navigator are usually part of the crew)
Capacity:
92 passengers or
64 airborne troops or
74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel
Payload: 42,000 lb (19,090 kg) including 2-3 Humvees or an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.79 m)
Wingspan: 132 ft 7 in (40.41 m)
Height: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
Empty weight: 75,562 lb (34,274 kg)
Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: up to 175,000 lb (79,378 kg), 155,000 lb recommended (70,305 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprops, 4,637 shp (3,458 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 362 knots (417 mph, 671 km/h)
Cruise speed: 348 knots, 644 km/h (400 mph, 643 km/h)
Range: 2,835 nm (3,262 mi, 5,250 km)
Service ceiling 28,000 ft, 8,540 m (8,615 m)


All for a paltry $66million

Point of note: The Chad mission alone this year will cost €57million. Most of that is because equipment must first be flown there (in someone elses aircraft) or shipped there (on someone elses ship) and then trucked to our bases (probably using irish army trucks that got there on someone elses ship too).

If we had a hercules, I could see us operating it for a very long time and to be honest I think paying for 2 of them makes more sense especially given the way our over-stretched air corps has to mutirole every airframe as it is.

Major point here too, our APC's are air portable in the hercules, so if one gets damaged in Chad, we fly in with a replacement, pick up the damaged one and bring it back.

there are too many plus points here and I for one hope that someone in the DOD can pull their head out of their own bum long enough to realise that this WOULD be Value for Money from the defence forces.

Manic Moran

Given the distances involved in the typical Irish mission (God-awful parts of Africa or Asia) if we're going to delve in to the depths of proposed wish-listing, I'd suggest looking at the eternal Irish partners in UN Crime, the Swedes. Granted, they already have a few Hercs, but they've also ordered three C-17s. A little more pricey, but still short-field capable, and far more suited for getting from Ireland to places like Eritrea, Liberia or Timor. I've done C-130s a few times, I'd hate to sit in one for however long it takes to fly all across Europe and half of Africa.

NTM

BrianD

it is the norm that on these multi-mational missions that different countries provide different resources so there is nothing different in Chad. it has been mentioned that the French aircraft seem to be a little worse for wear. they have a large air force so how would we cope with a single C130? Chad has a C-130..whoo hoo... but a multinational force has to defend their national and government.

A single C130 would never be enough. If you sent one to chad it would have to have a back up. Ireland has a number of international missions so we would need more for there and so on. Plus it isn't practical or efficient to fly APC's from ireland Chad. they need to be shipped in bulk over land and water.

Wate of money.

however, the article does raise issues that points to the hypocrisy of our so called 'neutrality'. A by product of this hypocrisy is that there was never huge investment in the military as we were supposed to be 'neutral'.

I thought the DF has their own SAM's though.

Poccington

BrianD wrote: »

I thought the DF has their own SAM's though.

We've got Javelins, no SAM's.

Hagar

Poccington wrote: »

We've got Javelins, no SAM's.

If the are the British made Javelins then they are SAMs, the US Javelins are anti-tank.

eroo

Tbh, I think it would be better to give the 2 CASA's to either Customs or the Coastguard and let them handle fisheries. Then purchase 2 C130's. Have one devoted entirely to overseas work, with the other held in reserve for use in training ARW parachutist's with the option of being deployed in rapid reaction force's/EU Battlegroups/evacuation of Irish citizens in a foreign country.

Also, get rid of some of the Ministerial jets!

Manic Moran

Poccington wrote: »

We've got Javelins, no SAM's.

What happened the RBS.70s?

NTM

Steyr

I believe We only have the US Javelin System.

concussion

Manic Moran wrote: »

What happened the RBS.70s?

NTM

We still have them, with more on the way. I never heard of us importing air defence missiles from the UK, we've had the RBS 70 for a while now.

They do have a certain similarity with the Javelin however





Swedish RBS 70 MANPADS




American Javelin anti-armour


But not to be confused with the British Javelin MANPADS

BrianD

eroo wrote: »

. Then purchase 2 C130's. Have one devoted entirely to overseas work, with the other held in reserve for use in training ARW parachutist's with the option of being deployed in rapid reaction force's/EU Battlegroups/evacuation of Irish citizens in a foreign country.

Also, get rid of some of the Ministerial jets!

Makes zero sense!

Where would this single c-130 be based overseas? A single C-130 serving the contingent in Chad would be completely inadequate. It's bound to have down time of some description meaning that the forces would be back to square one and reliant on other transport options. Investing in a transport wing would only make sense if multiple units were purchased and we simply don't have the demand for this.

In regard to evacuation of Irish citizens from other countries it would be far cheaper to fly them out by commercial flights or, if necessary, a chartered flight. I am not aware of any recent situations that Ireland owning a C-130 would have been of advantage in this regard. If the evacuees could not be flown out on a civilian flight then there is damn all a single C-130 from Baldonnell could do!

Leadership

Its a bit off topic but I went on a few operational deployments with the British. Each time I few, gee let me think:

Kenya 89 - Bristish Airways
Gulf 90 - Aeroflot, yes the Russians flew my unit on a Antinov
Bosnia 91 - USAF, C17
Bosnia 92 - Alitalia
etc
etc

Only once in a 15 year career did I deploy using the RAF resources and that was to the Falklands. The British cannot deploy its own forces using its own equipment and relies more and more on the US C17's and charter flights. This reporter is talking out of his hole....

Now the Irish do need 3 heavy transporters as a minimum IMO plus 3 squadrons of fighters on rotation but why spend the money? Unless the Irish really invest in a full (modern) Air Force that is capable of taking on an aggressor and be able to deploy battle group then why bother with a few planes that would be taken out within hours (minutes really) of an invasion.

eroo

BrianD wrote: »

Makes zero sense!

Where would this single c-130 be based overseas? A single C-130 serving the contingent in Chad would be completely inadequate. It's bound to have down time of some description meaning that the forces would be back to square one and reliant on other transport options. Investing in a transport wing would only make sense if multiple units were purchased and we simply don't have the demand for this.

In regard to evacuation of Irish citizens from other countries it would be far cheaper to fly them out by commercial flights or, if necessary, a chartered flight. I am not aware of any recent situations that Ireland owning a C-130 would have been of advantage in this regard. If the evacuees could not be flown out on a civilian flight then there is damn all a single C-130 from Baldonnell could do!

I didn't say it would be based overseas. It can be used for transporting troops, equipment etc. I t doesn't have to stay with the Irish contingent.

As regards your point on evacuation of Irish citizens, that would not be it's main role. It would be an option. Re-read my post again.

Duffers

So would you guys say the Irish Defence forces are hamstrung by their RoE?
I remember hearing a report on Irish radio that a patrol was fired on, and returned 'warning shots', and foxtrot oscared. Would that be an example of neutrality? Are they not allowed to engage if fired upon?

lostexpectation

Leadership wrote: »

Its a bit off topic but I went on a few operational deployments with the British. Each time I few, gee let me think:

Kenya 89 - Bristish Airways
Gulf 90 - Aeroflot, yes the Russians flew my unit on a Antinov
Bosnia 91 - USAF, C17
Bosnia 92 - Alitalia
etc
etc

Only once in a 15 year career did I deploy using the RAF resources and that was to the Falklands. The British cannot deploy its own forces using its own equipment and relies more and more on the US C17's and charter flights. This reporter is talking out of his hole....

well its hard to distinguish between private and state military any more, with the civilian air reserve fleet etc.

Manic Moran

I took chartered DC-10s for my trip, and that's US Air Force. However, they only went part of the way. To get from nice, safe, commericial Kuwait City Airport to the actual final destination in Balad took C-130s. Even the big countries will use chartered airliners for non-critical troop movement, just because it's cheaper than using military transport for the same job. That doesn't mean that they have to use chartered air to do it, though. If something comes up, they have the assets to do it themselves.

NTM