AFTER NAMA...HOW AND WHAT CAN WE AFFORD FOR IRISH DF-your ideas??

Avgas

This is a bit related to other nonsense I've spawned here...

I was thinking..given NAMA...and that we may shortly be the "Next Greece"......the ONLY way can afford any new significant procurements for the Irish DF over the coming period 2010-2015/20....will likely have to involve.. either some or all of these gimmicks........

1. LEASING EXPENSIVE ITEMS SUCH AS SHIPS (Royal Navy do it!)
2. BUYING SECOND-HAND SURPLUS (we've done it!)
3. BUYING CHEAPO 'BORAT' GEAR FROM NON-WESTERN SUPPLIERS (sorry to keep banging on about this)
4. COAT-TAILING ON SOME OTHER STATES BIG ORDER (joint procurement say through EDA or Nordic Battlegroup?)

My question is really then what would you suggest we do...

What could we lease and why?...

What surplus gear could we get from the French, Swedes...and even Americans ? (Please no nonsense suggestions like Nimitz, etc.).....

What Borat/East European gear would be acceptable to our refined 'western' sensibilities.....

And what future procurements in other (EU?) states could we coat-tail on and say 'can we have a few of those at the same price, please?'.....

Your winning answers on a SAE postcard to Parkgate Street and the winner gets a complete set of Bulgarian fireproof underwear in Ruritanian Speical Forces stealth pattern DPM featuring shades of tangerine, slurry brown and puke colour.

Okay aside from the WALTISH elements of this post...really what I'm trying to get a handle on would be defence procurement priorities..."must haves now or our people die"...type of thing....

Penny for your thoughts seeing as Euro cents may be worth less and less....these days.

OS119

the coherent thing would be to have a 'Strategic Overseas and Defence Policy Review'.

deciding, for instance, that the RoI is going to abandon its traditional policy of engaging in UN PK missions with signifcant troop contributions would, in effect, allow the effective disbandment of the Army. no remotely realistic forseeable security situation exists where such a force is required internally, and if it isn't going overseas then it has no raison d'etre.

that would allow the Defence Forces to concentrate on Air and Maritime security - and being an island that is entirely coherent - it would also allow those funds not allocated to Air and Maritime security be used to enable AGS to carry out the functions that the Army currently carries out under Miltary Aid to the Civil Power (Bomb Disposal, Armed Support, and 'manpower').

obviously nobody has the wit or sand to do that - it requires political thought and will.

so, perhaps the best thing would be to work out what would be the (ish) annual cost of the personnel required for a 4BG Army, and see what would be left from the current Army budget minus 10%. the amount of cash left decides whether the DF gets western equipment or goes for the Borat option. never let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

personally i can't see any likelyhood of getting any 'spare' kit off any NATO country - the things the Army needs are things every other bugger needs as well: Helicopters and IED-resistant vehicles.

Avgas

Your totally right about a need for a strategic defence review......

But its Catch 22...if you sit down and write up threat-scenarios...and then do proper force planning to 'manage' these...you only find out later that we cannot afford the gear/forces to 'manage' said threats...so starting out from what you can afford...is one way of finding out what it is your force can credibly do and do well (or average)..and what it should simply walk away from......and stop pretending....

but my guess is that tweaking/refinement would be the big underwhelming finding of any review rather than radical sea-change.....we will still need an ACP capability, a fishery/EEZ job, bloody CIT, and yes PK overseas....

But these 'joblets' could be re-examined in terms of how they are delivered upon by DF....

For example....the PK role has traditionally been conceived of as a mission where we offer either a few observers...in Landcruisers/now Rg32ms.....OR we go the whole hog and offer more or less an infantry battalion.....oh and we've since Timor, added some ARW persons....sometimes

I don't think over the period 2010-2015 we can afford to send a full Irish battlegroup..although we have the makings of it with 105mm, etc. And I don't think even a full battalion overseas will be affordable for maybe 1-2 years either...till the economic dust settles .......

BUT...we could spend 2010-15 creating and training for a Battle group capability...if we really wanted to....

OR perhaps more realistic......

We alternatively downsize from the self-imposed 850 overseas limit...bring it down to say 600-500 overseas...... and offer something more niche......not an entire battalion...but select (reinforced?) Coy sized formations...this is already our bid with NORDIC BATTGRP...the EOD element....

After all many states can offer a bog standard infantry battalion...and yes we're liked because we speak English, like a drink or seven, and won't (usually) sell our rifles.... as you've posted before...........:rolleyes:

But what could we offer that might be a bit different/better...a niche role that in the dreaded jargon 'adds value'.....?

Maybe its time to more fundamentally rethink our "peacekeeping product"?

Ultra light recce/HUMINT infantry?
More and better ARW assets?
More EOD...(they are a bit in demand these days!)
Specialist CBRN reaction/anti-terror? (?????)

You suggest??????

Regarding the helicopters/MRAPs point...yep...your're right Obama is not likely going just give us 50 used ex-Mosul MRAPs next St. Patrick's day (but that would be cool).....yet....there may be some leeway.......

There are well over 100 UH-1 Iroquois in storage for US Army...most are clapped out but perhaps a dozen could be sourced and brought up to UH-1Y standard with rebuilding? The US will have some Blackhawk and Seahawk types from time to time on surplus.....but these are expensive and complex machines. The French have quite a big fleet of old Puma's which they are beginning to retire......whereas UK have re-engined and tweaked theirs to keep them flying till 2020...so maybe something could be done with a combination lease of a few "brand new" EC725/225 Cougar/Super Pumas.....and a few re-conditioned ex-French Puma's (on a lighter workload model)...

Okay..I admit......that is all very iffy...but perhaps something could be done.......no?

Equally what about leasing helicopters more generally....?

What about getting our Pirhana's modified to a higher standard of protection when say the Swiss do so....(just for example)....

Finally, if you can't afford helicopters....what about cheaper STOL support planes.....something like the PC-6, PC-12...even Cessna Caravans.....obviously not the same thing...like a bicycle is not a sports car...but it can sometimes 'do' the same basic job....in limited conditions.....?

That sort of 'wacky' thinking is...probably just that...... 'wacky'...

BUT it can also provide the basis for getting something innovative in place within the severe constraints we face.....

Of course as you point out .....the severest constraint is that we have no serious idea about what we want our DF to do....why and how.....are we even in the defence business or the armed wing of the St. Vincent de Paul?

I obviously think the former not the latter but I bet there are senior people in Kildare street muttering over their coffees about ...'do we really need an army...tut, tut, etc., etc.

Maybe if or when we have Greek style riots that will/might change?