Óglaigh na hÉireann White and Green papers

roadmaster

i was thinking with the new future for the defence forces in the coming years to be set out with these papers, id give my views and see what the views of others on how the defence forces should go,i am not from a military background so when yee are all going crazy at me for some ideas i have just remember that, ill keep this as brief as i can.

THE NAVAL SERVICE:

Increase the fleet to at least 12/15 vessels and in doing this increase the personal to match. with an expanded naval service more room will be needed in cork so let the naval service completely take over where Irish steel was (if its safe) and have the island as a bigger base. I would create a naval air station in Shannon with the transfer of the air corps casa's there and in to naval ownership.Also with a bigger fleet and more sailors the naval service would be able to join overseas missions with the EU/UN

THE AIR CORPS:

This is where i feel a lot of people will shoot me, I think we should disband the air corps, (the following is only if the economy picks up) what does the air corps do? they are basically an army support unit at this stage. Jets are a total waste of time for us i believe Even if you had a Squadron of F 22's what how would you stop another 9/11, if a pilot at the last second decides to crash his aircraft in to Dublin there's not a lot that can be done, Further more if its a case that we got invaded, Our airfields would be first to go so where would we land are jets, besides if it came to defending our self s Óglaigh na hÉireann would revert back to being a guerilla force over night as that is the only way we could survive. so what would i do with the air corps i would sell casement to property developers for as much as possible. Land is becoming in short supply in Dublin again and the economy will be back eventually for sure .i would create a army aviation wing use the funds to redevelop gormanston and upgrade it to flight standards and build new hangers, buy more helicopters ( new and maybe old) and replace the Cessna fleet. i know the AAIU is there but i would tell them lads on your way Galway airport is lovely place for you. the garda helicopter could move to Weston, Apart from the Government jet i think all fixed wing air corps aircraft could operate from gormanston , keep the Pc9's for training and ground support and as i said above transfer the casa's to the navy am sure i have left out a lot but that's my view on the air corps from reading boards and IMOL.

THE ARMY:

Again excuse any false idea i have or any mistakes, I would close more barracks and just have Cork,Limerick,Galway,Finner,Athlone,Dublin (maybe just have one super base in dublin?) the curragh and Kilkenny. i feel this would cover the country well. One thing people forget all these barracks where British barracks to suppress the people, that is not the role of Óglaigh na hÉireann. Transform the PDF in to two fully mechanised brigades ready to move anywhere at the drop of a needle. the Mowag appears to be a good piece of kit so buy more including ones with 80mm + guns for fire support,scrap artillery apart from from ceremonial use can any one tell me what the 105's are for? they never go over seas, the 120's i don't know if you would need them in a fully mechanised brigade? also the Scropians i believe they are the greatest waste of time and they dont go over seas could the mowags not do there role? The RDF could they be brought in to ATCP roles more?

Anyway that's just a few idea i have so let the stoning begin:)

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

c-90

The people who make the white/green papers probably have the same military experience as you.

Your plan for the navy sounds good.

The air corps plan, I'd just transfer them to an actual army air corps. The jet debate could go for years, one or 2 second hand f15/16s just incase and because who doesn't need to protect they're own airspace. Replace the ancient cessnas with new ones or caravans, More choppers that are actually for bringing troops around (chinook/mi8) and capable of going overseas as troop transport/medivac.

Army, why would they get rid of the arty? It's the most fire power we have?! Just upgrade and send the basterds overseas. Brigades don't need to be mechanised, most overseas ops are nowadays it just takes a course.

I think the defence force should take a look at the future of the un, where is it going if anywhere at all? Move toward ISAF type operations and building up the publics/political confidence in sending our troops on dangerous operations. Training with other European countries at company level exercises ect.
Oh and win the euro millions so they can actually do any of this.

dodgydes

roadmaster wrote: »

THE ARMY:

Again excuse any false idea i have or any mistakes, I would close more barracks and just have Cork,Limerick,Galway,Finner,Athlone,Dublin (maybe just have one super base in dublin?) the curragh and Kilkenny.

So you just want to close Dundalk? Thats the only barracks you didn't list...

roadmaster

dodgydes wrote: »

So you just want to close Dundalk? Thats the only barracks you didn't list...

Sorry i made a complete balls of that i didnt mean to type half of that, i would have cork,galway ,finner dundalk, Have oinly one in dublin, the curragh and maybe keep kilkenny. we dont need a huge amount of barracks


.Army, why would they get rid of the arty? It's the most fire power we have?! Just upgrade and send the basterds overseas. Brigades don't need to be mechanised, most overseas ops are nowadays it just takes a course.

The only reason i suggest getting rid of artillery is as i said when do we use the 105's apart from ceremonial use and annual shoots in the glen. Feel free to correct me when was the last time the 120's used anger ?i think it was the Congo maybe they where used in the Lebanon i am not sure, but at least they could be switched over to infantry since they all ready use the 81mm there is not much difference in operation rather then have a full artillery corps

Morpheus

Thought the ceremonial unit had 26 pounders? Or at least their own guns?

jamesdiver

Navy definitely needs expansion, and one or two vessels on overseas deployment could only be a good learning curve.

goldie fish

The fact is, from a naval viewpoint, since the white paper of 2000 set the fleet at only 8 ships the area that the NS is required to patrol has doubled in size. Logic would then dictate that the fleet too should double in size, with more off the shelf ships in addition to task specific ones such as the Proposed EPV and a third OPV in time to replace future retirements. We are fast approaching a situation where the NS will be retiring 3 ships with only 2 replacements, and 3 more ships approaching retirement with no confirmed replacements.

thebigfella1

I agree with your navy view.

Air Corps provides a role and very usefull in ATCP/ATCA. Also the old story of better to have it than want it. I mean this mostly in the sense of Military discipline, it is a force that can be called upon for any task directed 24hrs a day and cannot withdraw its service once ordered.

The Army barracks closures I think your wrong with for numerous reasons. You have to have a deployable force, at the moment we can just about deploy troops anywhere within the country within 2/3 hours. We have an international border whether we like it or not also. Needs a militray presence that can easily be deployed if needs be. The recent activity on the border highlights this. Also you have to guage the personell in this barracks, there is a history here aswell as the obvious financial implications for the soldiers if sent to a superbase in curragh etc. We would be in effect limiting the selection process for future soldiers to within a 2 hour drive of this base. and losing out on possibly some of the most skilled people who wish to serve.

The skills held within the DF if removed in anyway would take years to be replaced. The DF are very cheap for the capabiliteis they possess. As an exapmle the DF could put a temporary bridge up within 24hrs in the event of a natural disaster cutting a key link(I know % chance is low just an example).

I 100% agree with the poster suggesting we become more involved with NATO style missions, we do have an opinioin as a nation and sometimes we prefer to hide behind neutrality. The Irish soldier would serve anywhere in the world and would do it aswell as anyone.

To be quite honest the biggest problem we have in terms of our DF in this country is the DOD (not the minister) but the civvies with little militray knowledge who want to call the nations forces a "defence organistion". That though is an argument for another day

el pasco

roadmaster wrote: »

i was thinking with the new future for the defence forces in the coming years to be set out with these papers, id give my views and see what the views of others on how the defence forces should go,i am not from a military background so when yee are all going crazy at me for some ideas i have just remember that, ill keep this as brief as i can.

THE NAVAL SERVICE:

Increase the fleet to at least 12/15 vessels and in doing this increase the personal to match. with an expanded naval service more room will be needed in cork so let the naval service completely take over where Irish steel was (if its safe) and have the island as a bigger base. I would create a naval air station in Shannon with the transfer of the air corps casa's there and in to naval ownership.Also with a bigger fleet and more sailors the naval service would be able to join overseas missions with the EU/UN

THE AIR CORPS:

This is where i feel a lot of people will shoot me, I think we should disband the air corps, (the following is only if the economy picks up) what does the air corps do? they are basically an army support unit at this stage. Jets are a total waste of time for us i believe Even if you had a Squadron of F 22's what how would you stop another 9/11, if a pilot at the last second decides to crash his aircraft in to Dublin there's not a lot that can be done, Further more if its a case that we got invaded, Our airfields would be first to go so where would we land are jets, besides if it came to defending our self s Óglaigh na hÉireann would revert back to being a guerilla force over night as that is the only way we could survive. so what would i do with the air corps i would sell casement to property developers for as much as possible. Land is becoming in short supply in Dublin again and the economy will be back eventually for sure .i would create a army aviation wing use the funds to redevelop gormanston and upgrade it to flight standards and build new hangers, buy more helicopters ( new and maybe old) and replace the Cessna fleet. i know the AAIU is there but i would tell them lads on your way Galway airport is lovely place for you. the garda helicopter could move to Weston, Apart from the Government jet i think all fixed wing air corps aircraft could operate from gormanston , keep the Pc9's for training and ground support and as i said above transfer the casa's to the navy am sure i have left out a lot but that's my view on the air corps from reading boards and IMOL.

THE ARMY:

Again excuse any false idea i have or any mistakes, I would close more barracks and just have Cork,Limerick,Galway,Finner,Athlone,Dublin (maybe just have one super base in dublin?) the curragh and Kilkenny. i feel this would cover the country well. One thing people forget all these barracks where British barracks to suppress the people, that is not the role of Óglaigh na hÉireann. Transform the PDF in to two fully mechanised brigades ready to move anywhere at the drop of a needle. the Mowag appears to be a good piece of kit so buy more including ones with 80mm + guns for fire support,scrap artillery apart from from ceremonial use can any one tell me what the 105's are for? they never go over seas, the 120's i don't know if you would need them in a fully mechanised brigade? also the Scropians i believe they are the greatest waste of time and they dont go over seas could the mowags not do there role? The RDF could they be brought in to ATCP roles more?

Anyway that's just a few idea i have so let the stoning begin:)

Since we are an Island it makes sense to have marines Basically scrap the current army and put the army on an massive super oil tanker which would be gutted and converted to be a would be an basic aircraft carrier and army base in one you can use old air craft and equipment from US
Because it is so big you can put anything on it
The army could then be deployed any where in the world to defend our interest or our allies and can be used to help other nations

The army base would be based in Shannon

You can buy a new supertanker for $150m so you could have 2 maybe more

Since these have a lifespan of at least 40 years 60 years pushing it it would be very cheap

We could also be used to experiment with new ideas with US and use off the shelf technology rather than custom built equipment

It would b very versatile as since it is so huge you could land a jumbo jet on it and has so much room could carry massive supplies of aid or troops and equipment to the affected area

goldie fish

el pasco wrote: »

Since we are an Island it makes sense to have marines Basically scrap the current army and put the army on an massive super oil tanker which would be gutted and converted to be a would be an basic aircraft carrier and army base in one you can use old air craft and equipment from US
Because it is so big you can put anything on it
The army could then be deployed any where in the world to defend our interest or our allies and can be used to help other nations

The army base would be based in Shannon

You can buy a new supertanker for $150m so you could have 2 maybe more

Since these have a lifespan of at least 40 years 60 years pushing it it would be very cheap

We could also be used to experiment with new ideas with US and use off the shelf technology rather than custom built equipment

It would b very versatile as since it is so huge you could land a jumbo jet on it and has so much room could carry massive supplies of aid or troops and equipment to the affected area

We get it, you like Oil Tankers.

You also know very little about them, or landing Jumbo jets. Current tanker lifespan is 15 years. None are fitted with runways. Nobody would want to live in a tank that smells of sulphur, most would die shortly after moving in too.

The Marines idea is good though. Would make sense that the entire Army is based on a Marines type force given that (a) we are surrounded by water, with a small land border to a friendly nation and (b)they spend most of their operational time deployed overseas.

-aurora

Op I take it your FCA?

Morpheus

-aurora wrote: »

Op I take it your FCA?

Whether the OP is or isnt RDF (there has been no FCA since Oct 2005) why would you ask?

kildarecommuter

Fantasy. White paper is just going to be cut and cut!

goldie fish

kildarecommuter wrote: »

Fantasy. White paper is just going to be cut and cut!

whoosh.

theGEM

el pasco wrote: »

Since we are an Island it makes sense to have marines Basically scrap the current army and put the army on an massive super oil tanker which would be gutted and converted to be a would be an basic aircraft carrier and army base in one you can use old air craft and equipment from US

The British tried that during the Falklands when they had hardly any naval power.





Of course it didn't work out using commercial equipment as military grade hardware:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Atlantic_Conveyor

pilatus

theGEM wrote: »

The British tried that during the Falklands when they had hardly any naval power.






Of course it didn't work out using commercial equipment as military grade hardware:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Atlantic_Conveyor

Are you serious? Whether it was a naval or merchant ship the Atlantic Conveyor was doomed. It was hit by 2 Exocet missiles, each weighing 1500lbs and travelling 1050-1100 foot/second, that's a pretty big impact, twice and then after the weapon impacts and penetrates, the 165lbs warhead detonates. Not a single ship in the task force could survive such a strike , military or not. The British are lucky it wasn't the Invincible or a troop carrier.

MRnotlob606

i think we should replace some of our fleet,Our flagship is going to be 30 years old in 2014,the le ashling should be gone also, we should have a mrv vessel

tac foley

Morpheus wrote: »

Thought the ceremonial unit had 26 25-pounders? Or at least their own guns?

Fixed it for ya.:D

tac

Morpheus

Any idea what submissions have been made?

goldie fish

You won't know till the White Paper is published. Even then you'll only know who contributed. Long process. May be a few Dail committee hearings in the meantime.

BlutendeRabe

roadmaster wrote: »

THE AIR CORPS:

This is where i feel a lot of people will shoot me, I think we should disband the air corps, (the following is only if the economy picks up) what does the air corps do? they are basically an army support unit at this stage. Jets are a total waste of time for us i believe Even if you had a Squadron of F 22's what how would you stop another 9/11, if a pilot at the last second decides to crash his aircraft in to Dublin there's not a lot that can be done, Further more if its a case that we got invaded, Our airfields would be first to go so where would we land are jets, besides if it came to defending our self s Óglaigh na hÉireann would revert back to being a guerilla force over night as that is the only way we could survive. so what would i do with the air corps i would sell casement to property developers for as much as possible. Land is becoming in short supply in Dublin again and the economy will be back eventually for sure .i would create a army aviation wing use the funds to redevelop gormanston and upgrade it to flight standards and build new hangers, buy more helicopters ( new and maybe old) and replace the Cessna fleet.

Brother would share the same view on the air force.
Btw out of curiosity, is there an issue with VTOLs in general such as the Harrier (yeah I know the brits are retiring it) or the F-35? Is it cost, performance or what? It would solve that problem you pointed out about airfields being first to go.

OS119

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

...is there an issue with VTOLs in general such as the Harrier (yeah I know the brits are retiring it) or the F-35? Is it cost, performance or what? It would solve that problem you pointed out about airfields being first to go.

V/STOL's, and Very Short TOL's are the most expensive, most technically demanding to design/build, most difficult to fly, shortest range and have the smallest payload aircraft you could imagine.

they only become an acceptable solution when the only other option is not having any fixed wing fast jets though a lack of suitably large runways - and larger aircraft carriers, or masses of matting/planking and concrete, always turn out to be cheaper than the development/operation of a V/STOL aircraft.

Harrier bucked this rule to an extent by being surprisingly robust, having a decent payload, and it was -if not cheap - then significantly cheaper than the CTOL aircraft it competed against for defence funding (Tornado, F-4 Phantom II etc..). F-35B on the other hand may end up with a upfront cost twice that of the CTOL 'A' version, and with significantly less range/payload, as well as being about as robust as wet toilet paper.

unlike Harrier, you will never see an F-35B operate from a woodland clearing, or a PSP runway at San Carlos - or indeed anywhere as insecure and prone to attack as Bastion...

Fukuyama

Do we actually need any (or most) of the stuff being discussed here? Retro-fitting an oil tanker to use as a mobile naval superbase? For what?!

Our only border is a (99%) friendly one. What trouble makers there are are not wanted on either side of it and both ourselves and the UK can keep a lid on them with policing.

In the event (1% chance by the way) that another nation does decide to invade, we'd be hammered into submission if we tried to fight conventionally; even with a navy twice the size or f15 jets.

The general consensus is that the PDF would revert to non-conventional warfare which in itself I see as an iffy promise. Regular armies don't make for good militias. Especially not in a place as small as Ireland. Where are the planning to hide out exactly?

There'd be a greater chance of the defeated force surrendering, going back to being civilians and THEN deciding to resist in some form. Perhaps an unofficial distribution of weapons, explosives and ammunition for burial for later use by key members.

I agree with an expansion to the Navy to secure Irish waters against illegal fishing and smuggling - but that's about it. The rest would just be a case of building an unsustainable force that's not needed.

tac foley

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

Brother would share the same view on the air force.
Btw out of curiosity, is there an issue with VTOLs in general such as the Harrier (yeah I know the brits are retiring it) or the F-35? Is it cost, performance or what? It would solve that problem you pointed out about airfields being first to go.

Harrier was retired from RAF and RN service in December 2010.

The Spanish Navy, Thai Navy, Royal Air Force, and United States Marine Corps have all retired their first-generation Harriers. Spain sold seven single-seat and two twin-seat Harriers to Thailand in 1998. The Royal Thai Navy's AV-8S Matadors were delivered as part of the air wing deployed on the new light aircraft carrier. The Thai Navy had from the start significant logistical problems keeping the Harriers operational due to a shortage of funds for spare parts and equipment, leaving only a few Harriers serviceable at a time. In 1999, two years after being delivered, only one airframe was in airworthy condition. Around 2003, Thailand considered acquiring former Royal Navy Sea Harriers, which were more suitable for maritime operations and better equipped for air defence, to replace their AV-8S Harriers; this investigation did not progress to a purchase. The last first-generation Harriers were retired by Thailand in 2006.

There is a full-size plastic Harrier as a gate guardian outside RAF Wittering, a few in museums, and that's it.

tac

OS119

Dean0088 wrote: »

... The rest would just be a case of building an unsustainable force that's not needed.

very broadly i'd agree with you, in territorial defence terms Ireland is secure, or looked another way, so utterly over-matched that even with a defence budget 10 X its current figure it would barely register as a speedbump*, let alone a barrier.

the question of 'need' however is greater than purely territorial defence - personally i see defence as being an amorphous entity, in that defence is made up of the Combat Bde, the 'winning friends and influencing people' activities of politicians, diplomats and NGO's, the cultural/political/economic ties with larger, more powerful neighbours, the police/intelligence co-operation with other states, and 'forward intervention', and the military/political actions that mean that a potential problem gets dealt with in Chad, or Mali, or CAR, or the Caucases insead of waiting for the problem to manifest itself in Europe.

the problem however is that all of the above have as many definitions as people you ask, and until there is a grown-up debate about what 'defence' is, you can't really make good decisions about wht defence should have or look like.


*hyperbole, but for the sake of the argument...

Fukuyama

OS119 wrote: »

very broadly i'd agree with you, in territorial defence terms Ireland is secure, or looked another way, so utterly over-matched that even with a defence budget 10 X its current figure it would barely register as a speedbump*, let alone a barrier.

the question of 'need' however is greater than purely territorial defence - personally i see defence as being an amorphous entity, in that defence is made up of the Combat Bde, the 'winning friends and influencing people' activities of politicians, diplomats and NGO's, the cultural/political/economic ties with larger, more powerful neighbours, the police/intelligence co-operation with other states, and 'forward intervention', and the military/political actions that mean that a potential problem gets dealt with in Chad, or Mali, or CAR, or the Caucases insead of waiting for the problem to manifest itself in Europe.

the problem however is that all of the above have as many definitions as people you ask, and until there is a grown-up debate about what 'defence' is, you can't really make good decisions about wht defence should have or look like.


*hyperbole, but for the sake of the argument...

Far greater than territorial indeed, but it was the aspect being focused upon by the OP an others and it comes up regularly so I honed in on it.

I agree with you about the rest. One of the best defences is not having to defend at all. With Ireland's size and economy (in comparison to most other countries) we're never going to have overseas interests to defend or 'liberate'.

Forward intervention in various different crisis is a bit of a double edged sword for me. Realistically, it'll be EU Battlegroups doing this kind of stuff. Even with the likes of Libya in 2011, the UK and France had to partner up along with help from the US and Italy. So, even if we wanted to, Ireland could only ever get involved as part of an EU Battlegroup, which is the future. So I guess I'd agree with a more 'Marine' structure for the DF to better suit this role.

However, I'd hate to see a scenario where the EU was strategically getting involved in some situations and choosing to ignore others.... But that's a discussion for another day.

As for purely defending Ireland I think the RDF should be stripped down and made into something else entirely. Forget training up a "mirror army" to the PDF; they're not required. Surly it'd be better to only train them in ambushing, asymmetrical warfare and the like with basic marksmanship, recon abilities.

A modestly trained contingent of the population would make a potential aggressor think twice about a long term occupation plan. At the very least, it might help realize a potential resistance.

OS119

Dean0088 wrote: »

...Forward intervention in various different crisis is a bit of a double edged sword for me. Realistically, it'll be EU Battlegroups doing this kind of stuff. Even with the likes of Libya in 2011, the UK and France had to partner up along with help from the US and Italy. So, even if we wanted to, Ireland could only ever get involved as part of an EU Battlegroup, which is the future...

oh i'm not suggesting an 'Ireland goes it alone' doctrine, quite the opposite - i think Irelands security depends on being inextricably bound up in the security and security apparatus of Europe. personally i'm not so sure about the EU BattleGroup concept, i just don't think they work in real life - despite there being quite a few occasions where they could have fitted right into a problem, they've never been used, and ad hoc alliances of European forces have been called on instead. that for me looks to be the future, and only regular exercises with the likely suspects (France, UK, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlnds etc..) is going to allow Irish participation in such efforts.

i'm not sure about the 'asymetric response' thing either - to use hyperbole again: if at Staff College you were given the problem 'defend your country against X', and you answer to the DS was 'well, in 800 years we'll have cleared the enemy from 75% of the land mass...' you probably ought not to be hoping for a long and glittering career in the Army. making it 'too much like hard work' would actually be easier, and vastly cheaper in blood and treasure with both conventional military capability and the alliances that come with integration with the European security apparatus.

Fukuyama

OS119 wrote: »

i'm not sure about the 'asymetric response' thing either - to use hyperbole again: if at Staff College you were given the problem 'defend your country against X', and you answer to the DS was 'well, in 800 years we'll have cleared the enemy from 75% of the land mass...' you probably ought not to be hoping for a long and glittering career in the Army. making it 'too much like hard work' would actually be easier, and vastly cheaper in blood and treasure with both conventional military capability and the alliances that come with integration with the European security apparatus.

True enough but you have to remember that Ireland is never going be able to defend itself so will rely on alliances - which are the PDFs role (realistically, the RDF are never going overseas).

So if we MUST have a reserve component, surely it makes more sense to give them basic training and then an emphasis on "if we're ever occupied, you all feck off into civilian population and start resisting from there in small groups". I believe this was pretty much the game plan if Ireland had been invaded during The Emergency (save for an initial conventional resistance to buy time).

Looking at a scenario right now, if Ireland were to be occupied for some strategic reason by another nation, having a large number of people trained to use weapons in an unconventional harassing and disruptive role would definitely make them rethink how viable an occupation would be.

But yeah, from a conventional stand-point, EU integration is the way forward.

kildarecommuter

If the White Paper ends up anything other than a 1 Bde Army plus Aer Corps and Naval Service I'd be seriously surprised and I doubt a reserve component will feature in plans.

Morpheus

kildarecommuter wrote: »

If the White Paper ends up anything other than a 1 Bde Army plus Aer Corps and Naval Service I'd be seriously surprised and I doubt a reserve component will feature in plans.

Which would be the dumbest decision the govt could make if they bothered to pull their heads out of the own a$$es and look at what the rest of the world is doing.