[Article] Getting Out Of a "Failed State" Should the Irish DF change emphasis?

BrianD

Interesting article in the current edition of The Phoenix magazine (March 25th, 2011) about "Operation Nemo" which is very critical of the joint Defence Forces (DF) and Dept of Foreign affairs (DFA) to rescue stranded Irish citizens from Libya. I can't reproduce the article here (as it's not online) but some key points from the article including what the DF should be doing with their €1bn budget.

The article suggests that Operation Nemo was a failure. Other countries were able to get their citizens en masse while we couldn't.

Two planes with a combined capacity of 28 people were sent to remove an estimated 400 people.

By coincidence, the precise scenario had been rehearsed "days before" in Sweden (this might explain the super confident YouTube video posted by the DF). A chartered "wet lease" Boeing 737 was used in this case but not used when the real situation happened.

They also simulated the deployment of a military detachment to a "failed state" - 140 troops, 32 vehicles (incl. 18 MOWAGS) and 11 sea containers of equipment. It all went to Sweden to participate in the failed state exercise.

One plane flew to Libya and collected no-one

Joe Duffy did more to get people out then the DF who are on 5-days notice to react to a "failed state" scenario.

The real lesson is, and I quote, "...how the Irish Army is still being trained for the wrong purposes. Instead of an emphasis on assistance to civilians in disaster situstions, as any army in a neutral state should be directed, the €1bn pa Irish army is prepared for adventures anywhere but at home. Thus it buys tanks instead of helicopters and thus we can't even provide an air rescue service around our shores"

(one assumes by tanks they mean armoured vehicles and we know that the SAR is privatised)

Is it time for a change in emphasis?

Manic Moran

I think the magazine is a bit misguided.

The Sweden exercise was a round hole into which the round peg of DF capability was used. The Libya event was more of an triangular hole and they tried to invent a square DF peg to fit into it on the fly. No wonder it didn't work.

NTM

Morpheus

wonder why they didnt just wet lease a 737 anyway.

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the magazine is a bit misguided.

The Sweden exercise was a round hole into which the round peg of DF capability was used. The Libya event was more of an triangular hole and they tried to invent a square DF peg to fit into it on the fly. No wonder it didn't work.

NTM

But would the point of the emphasis not stand then?

The Swedish exercise was supposed to be a Failed State exercise and I'm guessing in two stages 1) evacuate Irish civilians and then 2) deploy as part of an armed force if required.

In this case the Department should have been in a position to hire a larger capacity airliner for the job but resorted to smaller capacity Air Corp aircraft.

I was wondering where the sudden enthusiasm by the Air Corp to evacuate civilians came from as we have never done it before. It's like when you go off on an office training course and you come back wanting to change everything and take on the world.

Poccington

The Phoenix is quite well know for posting absolute ****e when it comes to the DF.

Our Defence spending isn't even at the 1 billion mark.

Jim236

How is it the DF's fault that they weren't allowed take passengers from Tripoli Airport? It was so obvious that the people running the airport were demanding bribes, and we simply had nothing to give. Hence why other countries got their citizens out, and we didn't. So it wasn't just to do with a lack of capacity.

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote: »

I was wondering where the sudden enthusiasm by the Air Corp to evacuate civilians came from as we have never done it before.

Had they ever been asked to do it before?

NTM

BrianD

Poccington wrote: »

The Phoenix is quite well know for posting absolute ****e when it comes to the DF.

Our Defence spending isn't even at the 1 billion mark.

Well €725m according to the Dept of Defence in December last and there's another €208 on pensions so not far off all in.

Jim236 wrote:

How is it the DF's fault that they weren't allowed take passengers from Tripoli Airport? It was so obvious that the people running the airport were demanding bribes, and we simply had nothing to give. Hence why other countries got their citizens out, and we didn't. So it wasn't just to do with a lack of capacity.

Everybody else seemed to get their folks out on commercial flights and charters. The bribes would have been small change and its more likely that the punters arriving at the airport would be paying the bribes. Also if you had 400 people, 2 planes and 28 seats you'd be paying a fortune in bribes for the potential 28 journeys required! Not well thought out!! Anyway they must have known that "walking around" money would have been needed in this situation.

Manic Moran wrote:

Had they ever been asked to do it before?

NTM

Not that I'm aware of. But I'm sure the Dept turned around and said - "We've spent a fortune training you, we've got some planes and it's not far away. Go!"

goldie fish

Poccington wrote: »

The Phoenix is quite well know for posting absolute ****e when it comes to the DF.

Our Defence spending isn't even at the 1 billion mark.

Someone in the phoenix spens a lot of time earwigging in a pub frequented by donners.

xflyer

Unfortunately this illustrates all too well why the Air Corps has a limited or no role to play beyond our shores. Not a criticism of the Air Corps but the way they are used and trained.

It's a little unfair on them though. They were dropped in the deep end. The Air Corps cannot deploy anywhere. They did their best but we as country have no idea or experience in these matters.

The best option clearly was to send in a commercial operator as proved by a number of other countries.

It's a modern Congo moment, as veterans of that conflict will agree.

Manic Moran

Not that I'm aware of. But I'm sure the Dept turned around and said - "We've spent a fortune training you, we've got some planes and it's not far away. Go!"

I'm inclined to agree, but that's hardly the fault of the Air Corps, though, is it?

NTM

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree, but that's hardly the fault of the Air Corps, though, is it?

NTM

I'm not blaming them at all. They go where they are told.

But the article does raise questions. Should we ditch the PC9s and just have a fleet of helicopters and a, say, 737?

A 737 could probably provide ministerial air transport (might be too expensive?) and then if required ferry Irish expats out of "failed states" or "disaster states". Within reason of course.

Utrinque Paratus

BrianD wrote: »

I'm not blaming them at all. They go where they are told.

But the article does raise questions. Should we ditch the PC9s and just have a fleet of helicopters and a, say, 737?

A 737 could probably provide ministerial air transport (might be too expensive?) and then if required ferry Irish expats out of "failed states" or "disaster states". Within reason of course.

These events are rare, they should have simply chartered a 737.

Because there was an election on, the lear jet and other plane were sent to show they were not just used by govt ministers, but it backfired.


A better idea would be for the republic to press for an EU reaction force which could be deployed to get EU citizens out in such circumstances.

Morpheus

Because there was an election on, the lear jet and other plane were sent to show they were not just used by govt ministers, but it backfired.

I assume this is merely your opinion? most people know the jet is used for air ambulance service.

The "other" plane is a CASA Maritime Patrol aircraft... you dont have to be a military person to know that this other asset is NOT for ministerial transport. It is by all accounts worked quite hard in its main maritime role and rarely if ever used in this TD flying role... especially after the grief the govt got with the Mary Harney pub opening incident years ago.

Fratton Fred

I would have thought this was more a foreign office issue than a defence force one.

Surely all the DF can do us turn up with a plane and load it with civilians, they ate dependant on someone on the ground shepherding people so they are available to board when the flight is there.

It doesn't matter if you turn up in a cessna or a jumbo, if your people on the ground haven't done their job then no one is going to get on.

Utrinque Paratus

Morphéus wrote: »

I assume this is merely your opinion? most people know the jet is used for air ambulance service.

The "other" plane is a CASA Maritime Patrol aircraft... you dont have to be a military person to know that this other asset is NOT for ministerial transport. It is by all accounts worked quite hard in its main maritime role and rarely if ever used in this TD flying role... especially after the grief the govt got with the Mary Harney pub opening incident years ago.

Ministers got alot of bad publicity using the Lear jet and CASA, yes that is my opinion. Just like the above is merely yours.

BigDuffman

I fail to see how if Irish citizens were in peril that they would not justify the cost of leasing an appropriate air craft for the purpose. If you gave O'Leary enough money he would fly the thing himself!

The DF may have had skills to extricate Irish citizens from a hazardous situation but I cant imagine the governmental mechanisms that are in place having the balls to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

SAR no longer in the DF remit but as others have mentioned I don't see why the DF cannot be more involved in operations where their extensive skills can be put to use. Any time they have been tasked & launch it has had nothing but a positive response. Case & Point floods, ice, getting those hikers off the lug, jesus even the Mull on operation transformation had a response!

People don't like hearing it...but I'm a firm believer in justifying the expense of the DF to the public through actually being seen to do something in the public eye. I think it is arrogance to merely think "The DF uses a budget of X to do X, just because we do"

BrianD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

These events are rare, they should have simply chartered a 737.

Because there was an election on, the lear jet and other plane were sent to show they were not just used by govt ministers, but it backfired.


A better idea would be for the republic to press for an EU reaction force which could be deployed to get EU citizens out in such circumstances.

this year we've had Libya and the Japan earthquake. Libya required evacuations while Japan potentially required the evacuation of Irish citizens. There's currently unrest in Bahrain and other arab states and there are many Irish citizens located in the gulf region. I'm not saying that a plane such as a 737 would shuttle back and forward to Ireland but would be available to get people out of country A to safer country B and could then use commercial flights from there.

In regard to the EU reaction force, it seems that defence forces are half tooled up for this and a number of other roles but are not fully capable of doing any fully. This is not a derrogatory remark about the forces per se it's more that the political masters need to define the role or roles.

Raging_Ninja

The sister of a friend is in Bahrain, and according to my friend NCIS agents informed her a few weeks ago that she (and other westerners in the compound in which she is staying) could be evacuated from the country in less than an hour.

Just because we lack the capability to do things, doesn't mean our allies can't help us. We scratch the US' back (e.g. Shannon), and they scratch ours (evacuate our citizens).

Poccington

BrianD wrote: »

this year we've had Libya and the Japan earthquake. Libya required evacuations while Japan potentially required the evacuation of Irish citizens. There's currently unrest in Bahrain and other arab states and there are many Irish citizens located in the gulf region. I'm not saying that a plane such as a 737 would shuttle back and forward to Ireland but would be available to get people out of country A to safer country B and could then use commercial flights from there.

In regard to the EU reaction force, it seems that defence forces are half tooled up for this and a number of other roles but are not fully capable of doing any fully. This is not a derrogatory remark about the forces per se it's more that the political masters need to define the role or roles.

We already have troops on standby as part of the Nordic Battle Group, why the need for another reaction force on top of this?

We provided the plane for the attempted evacuation, the Department of Foreign Affairs made a balls of the work on the ground. We already have the Learjet, the CASA... There's really no need to go out and splash out on a 737 on what is already a shoestring budget.

BrianD

Poccington wrote: »

We already have troops on standby as part of the Nordic Battle Group, why the need for another reaction force on top of this?

Should we scrap this?

We provided the plane for the attempted evacuation, the Department of Foreign Affairs made a balls of the work on the ground. We already have the Learjet, the CASA... There's really no need to go out and splash out on a 737 on what is already a shoestring budget.

The entire operation was a flop despite the monet spent by the department in training for this.

SamuelFox

We provided the plane for the attempted evacuation, the Department of Foreign Affairs made a balls of the work on the ground.

Sorry mate, but I disagree totally with that, and I think you are trying to shift the blame. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt for the Defence Forces. This “operation” was supposedly carried out because it was too dangerous for civvies. The boys took off in a blaze of glory and every last drop of publicity was screwed out of this. Unfortunately the time that should have been spent on planning obviously didn’t happen and the rest is history.

In reality, the Air Corps should never have been involved. They had no
effective resources to contribute and the half assed attempt risked escalating an already difficult situation. All this operation did was highlight the institutional insecurity of the Defence Forces.

goldie fish

SamuelFox wrote: »

Sorry mate, but I disagree totally with that, and I think you are trying to shift the blame. This was nothing more than a publicity stunt for the Defence Forces. This “operation” was supposedly carried out because it was too dangerous for civvies. The boys took off in a blaze of glory and every last drop of publicity was screwed out of this. Unfortunately the time that should have been spent on planning obviously didn’t happen and the rest is history.

In reality, the Air Corps should never have been involved. They had no
effective resources to contribute and the half assed attempt risked escalating an already difficult situation. All this operation did was highlight the institutional insecurity of the Defence Forces.

It also demonstrated they are woewully under prepared for any sort of operational role.

OS119

BrianD wrote: »

...Is it time for a change in emphasis?

it must be - the Army is set up as a divisional (3 full combat Brigades) combined arms force, yet would actually struggle to get 30% of that divisional force into high-intensity combat 50 yards from its barracks.

having something you can't get to where it needs to be, and that you can't support even if it to get there by teleportation, is a complete waste of time, effort and money - and worse, it gives people the belief they have a capability when actually they don't.

i've said it before and i'll say it again - Ireland's Peacekeeping, internal and external security needs would be far better handled by a 4 independant BattleGroup force that had mobility (both strategic and battlefield), than by a 9 Bn force that can only move 60 soldiers at a time by air.

omg a kitty

I think we should have more planes(as previously suggested), more ships and less tanks(for the time being). We're an island,why do we have so many ground troops and vehicles and 8 ships? We need ships and planes to protect our seas and make rescuses like the Libyan one, I agree it doesn't happen all too often.
OS119, can't the CASA carry 40+ passengers each?? Still not enough though

Manic Moran

less tanks

One can't have less than '0'.

OK, '1' if you count the Comet the curragh museum has. Do they have a working Landsverk as well?

NTM

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

i've said it before and i'll say it again - Ireland's Peacekeeping, internal and external security needs would be far better handled by a 4 independant BattleGroup force that had mobility (both strategic and battlefield), than by a 9 Bn force that can only move 60 soldiers at a time by air.

That will change within the next year or so.

neilled

BrianD wrote: »

I
The real lesson is, and I quote, "...how the Irish Army is still being trained for the wrong purposes. Instead of an emphasis on assistance to civilians in disaster situstions, as any army in a neutral state should be directed, the €1bn pa Irish army is prepared for adventures anywhere but at home. Thus it buys tanks instead of helicopters and thus we can't even provide an air rescue service around our shores"


Is it time for a change in emphasis?

Thats a sweeping statement that is incredibly misguided. The armies of neutral states exist for the reason that all the other armies around the world exist - carrying out organised violence in defence of the state. They can do alot of other things including rescuing civilians in disaster situations and providing humanitarian aid, but these are secondary functions. There haven't been any tank purchases, probably since the comet (there are wheeled apcs) as you can't really call the scorpion a tank. The role of the air corps is a matter for the government and to be honest, with the equipment and manpower the air corps has it couldn't provide a proper service.

omg a kitty

Manic Moran wrote: »

One can't have less than '0'.

OK, '1' if you count the Comet the curragh museum has. Do they have a working Landsverk as well?

NTM

Ah I meant "armoured vehicles"

Morpheus

Poccington wrote: »

That will change within the next year or so.

Somehow I doubt you mean it will change because they are getting MORE helis!!!!!!

Poccington

Morphéus wrote: »

Somehow I doubt you mean it will change because they are getting MORE helis!!!!!!

Don't be so ridiculous, next you'll be suggesting the new heli's we get should be able to move more than a section of troops :pac:

OS119

neilled wrote: »

The armies of neutral states exist for the reason that all the other armies around the world exist - carrying out organised violence in defence of the state.

an excellent statement that should be branded onto the inside of the eyelids of every member of the DF, member of the Dail, and civil servant.

fighting against the armies of mainland Europes two 'neutral' states would be as an unpleasent experience as fighting against the French, German or British Armies - they are hard, sharp heavy tools created for the tasks of breaking things and killing people, and they both have the capabilty to do that on an industrial scale.

they do not wear flowers in their hair, nor do they carry rubber guns or use ammunition that turns into sneezing powder on contact. they have heavy armour, mobile, heavy artillery, fearsome air support and a combined arms doctrine designed to turn anyone they are pointed towards into a warm, pink mist.

Armies exist to give their masters an option when faced with a problem - some problems require a diplomatic tool, some a financial one, others a blind-eye, but some require something, sharp, heavy and very frightening.

Morpheus

Yes and we should push to become a neutral state, but alas, we would need to have a neutral states army... something we could never afford....

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

Yes and we should push to become a neutral state, but alas, we would need to have a neutral states army... something we could never afford....

ditch the fantasy Division (and the even more fantasy-like RDF Division), and Ireland could afford an astonishingly lethal 4Bn Brigade.

the issue with air support is a problem with the current budget, but Irelands defence budget is half what everyone else in Europe pays. take defence spending to everyone elses's 2% of GDP and Ireland could operate a 50-odd strong fleet of new-build F-16's as well as a having a world class Brigade with strategic airlift and significant battlefield helicopter mobility.