The Labour Defence Manifesto

Psychlops

Defence, Page 21, interesting to say the very least, nobody else has mentioned anything like this..


https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf//labour_manifesto_web.pdf

Labour will develop a strategy to expand the Naval Service so that it can fully patrol all our waters, for the regulation of fishing, to protect marine reserves, to improve our sub-surface detection/search capacity and to defeat drug smuggling operations

Labour will evaluate the role of the Air Corps in protecting Irish airspace in light of Brexit by commissioning a feasibility study, with recommendations on Air Intercept/Defence Capability and a review of the agreement currently in place with the RAF. This study will include an estimate of the likely cost of such capabilities.

Labour will establish a dedicated Cybersecurity Unit within the Defence Forces that will develop technological capabilities for Cyber Defence of all operational systems and defence capabilities of the support systems (manpower, logistics) and create the necessary conditions to attract and retain people with exceptional ICT Skills.

Townton

The agreement with the RAF works quite well I think. unless they actually manage to bridge that gap by attaining a realistic and workable intercept capability then I think the RAF agreement should be kept in place. First class protection for next to nothing in cost.

jonnybigwallet

Better to have our own force in place.
Imo. Should not be depending on former colonial power.

Psychlops

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Better to have our own force in place.
Imo. Should not be depending on former colonial power.

Why? Iceland gets on just fine with NATO air policing, the same goes for Estonia, now that I think of it, has an RAF Typhoon even entered Irish airspace on a training flight?

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

Why? Iceland gets on just fine with NATO air policing, the same goes for Estonia, now that I think of it, has an RAF Typhoon even entered Irish airspace on a training flight?

The difference of course is those nations are actually NATO members, the Command and Control for such air policing is far more extensive than the "agreement" we have, also those nations actually have said NATO units in their nations not "on call".

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

Defence, Page 21, interesting to say the very least, nobody else has mentioned anything like this..


https://www.labour.ie/download/pdf//labour_manifesto_web.pdf

Labour will develop a strategy to expand the Naval Service so that it can fully patrol all our waters, for the regulation of fishing, to protect marine reserves, to improve our sub-surface detection/search capacity and to defeat drug smuggling operations

Labour will evaluate the role of the Air Corps in protecting Irish airspace in light of Brexit by commissioning a feasibility study, with recommendations on Air Intercept/Defence Capability and a review of the agreement currently in place with the RAF. This study will include an estimate of the likely cost of such capabilities.

Labour will establish a dedicated Cybersecurity Unit within the Defence Forces that will develop technological capabilities for Cyber Defence of all operational systems and defence capabilities of the support systems (manpower, logistics) and create the necessary conditions to attract and retain people with exceptional ICT Skills.

It's interesting apart from the fact that it will never see any action, even if Labour get enough seats to be in a coalition, this wouldn't be accepted by the other parties.

ectoraige

sparky42 wrote: »

It's interesting apart from the fact that it will never see any action, even if Labour get enough seats to be in a coalition, this wouldn't be accepted by the other parties.

Well, the feasibility studies and reviews will get the thumbs up, all that takes is a few suits and beancounters with no expertise in the area.

sparky42

ectoraige wrote: »

Well, the feasibility studies and reviews will get the thumbs up, all that takes is a few suits and beancounters with no expertise in the area.

Wouldn't hold my breath even on that, this is defence and who knows what shape the next government will be, the DOD would most likely just give a one line "Nope" reply and leave it at that.

This isn't the United States.

marieholmfan

Townton wrote: »

The agreement with the RAF works quite well I think. unless they actually manage to bridge that gap by attaining a realistic and workable intercept capability then I think the RAF agreement should be kept in place. First class protection for next to nothing in cost.

Protection from who?

The British are our only enemy.

sparky42

marieholmfan wrote: »

Protection from who?

The British are our only enemy.

That's nice, so what's your solution with dealing with a million Unionists if there's ever unification if that's your view?

sparky42

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't the United States.

And? So? What's the point you are trying to make?

marieholmfan

sparky42 wrote: »

That's nice, so what's your solution with dealing with a million Unionists if there's ever unification if that's your view?

Drones.

sparky42

marieholmfan wrote: »

Drones.

Idiot.

marieholmfan

sparky42 wrote: »

Idiot.

Sparky if we give all unionists drones they will have an enjoyable hobby that will leave no time for twrroriam!

jonnybigwallet

I see the Mexican government is flogging off the presidential plane for $130m. Looks like a handy piece of kit for a replacement for the government jet and capable of carrying 80 troops to overseas postings as well. Looks like a good deal to me!

Larbre34

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

I see the Mexican government is flogging off the presidential plane for $130m. Looks like a handy piece of kit for a replacement for the government jet and capable of carrying 80 troops to overseas postings as well. Looks like a good deal to me!

You think every bit of a fire sale is a good deal. I hope you're not a stockbroker.

The Mexican govt are trying to flog what is a pretty tidy Dreamliner to the US or Canada in exchange for medical supplies. If that's what they are reduced to, I can't see anyone having faith in the maintenance record of that plane.

There is definitely an argument for a single multi-purpose modular passenger jet that can be configured for VIP transport, troop transport, citizen airlift, medevac, or freight like the RNZAF 757s, but it should be procured locally in Europe, maybe even dry leased.

jonnybigwallet

Glad you agree that tha multi function configuration of this plane makes for a very versatile workhorse. I'm sure it must be in pretty good nick seeing that it was used by "el presidente".

Heraldoffreeent

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Glad you agree that tha multi function configuration of this plane makes for a very versatile workhorse. I'm sure it must be in pretty good nick seeing that it was used by "el presidente".

Exactly what he didn't say.

the_syco

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Better to have our own force in place.
Imo. Should not be depending on former colonial power.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/giea/governmentincomeandexpenditurejuly2019/
Irelands 2018 revenue was €82,000,000,000

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2018/03/30/boeing-and-kuwait-cement-super-hornet-deal/
Kuwait are buying 22 F-18's. The cost of the contract is $1.2bn, or about €1.09bn

You'd need to train the engineers.
You'd need to train the pilots.
You'd need to pay for the above to happen.
You'd then need to pay the above so they don't leave to goto the UK.

Currently, people are leaving Irish navy and Irish military to work in Tescos, as it pays better. So how about we improve what we have before spending money on stuff we don't need?

Lord Fairlord

the_syco wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/giea/governmentincomeandexpenditurejuly2019/
Irelands 2018 revenue was €82,000,000,000

https://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2018/03/30/boeing-and-kuwait-cement-super-hornet-deal/
Kuwait are buying 22 F-18's. The cost of the contract is $1.2bn, or about €1.09bn

You'd need to train the engineers.
You'd need to train the pilots.
You'd need to pay for the above to happen.
You'd then need to pay the above so they don't leave to goto the UK.

Currently, people are leaving Irish navy and Irish military to work in Tescos, as it pays better. So how about we improve what we have before spending money on stuff we don't need?

I think that being able to deal with, for example, a hijacked airliner, is a capability that we ought have as a sovereign state. I do agree that pay should be better; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

jonnybigwallet

Hear hear lord f

the_syco

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

I think that being able to deal with, for example, a hijacked airliner, is a capability that we ought have as a sovereign state. I do agree that pay should be better; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

We don't have the money to pay the existing soldiers, so you want to buy aircraft?

Manic Moran

Let's backtrack a bit here, before talking about purchases. Is there anything in the manifesto which addresses how the goals are to be achieved and how that will be funded?

sparky42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Let's backtrack a bit here, before talking about purchases. Is there anything in the manifesto which addresses how the goals are to be achieved and how that will be funded?

Nope. But honestly that's pretty much the same for all the Manifesto's across the board. Plenty of "wishful thinking" in the costings/fundings.

jonnybigwallet

Its a question of increasing the budget allocating to the DF to a more realistic level. Around 2% GDP would probably hit the right spot and pay decent wages and enable develop a credible Air Corps and complete the naval fleet renewal with 2 smaller inshore patrol vessels and a new flagship.

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Its a question of increasing the budget allocating to the DF to a more realistic level. Around 2% GDP would probably hit the right spot and pay decent wages and enable develop a credible Air Corps and complete the naval fleet renewal with 2 smaller inshore patrol vessels and a new flagship.

The DF couldn't spend 2% currently, that would be beyond a reasonable increase.

jonnybigwallet

Might be able to nobble some funds from the EU post brexit. I'd like to see one of the P60's out on the Persian Gulf supporting the French / Dutch / German deployment meself.

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Might be able to nobble some funds from the EU post brexit. I'd like to see one of the P60's out on the Persian Gulf supporting the French / Dutch / German deployment meself.

Ah, no, just no.

jonnybigwallet

Didn't realize u were minister if defence. Can't see why DF could not countenance keeping trade routes of strategic interest to the nation open and would also be very good training for increased responsibilities post brexit closer to home. Would not break the bank either. Quite a lot of Irelands Oil passes through these waters by the way. No need to be eternally patronizing every time I post something which is beyond your rather provincial ambitions.

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Didn't realize u were minister if defence. Can't see why DF could not countenance keeping trade routes of strategic interest to the nation open and would also be very good training for increased responsibilities post brexit closer to home. Would not break the bank either. Quite a lot of Irelands Oil passes through these waters by the way. No need to be eternally patronizing every time I post something which is beyond your rather provincial ambitions.

They are OPV's (and cheap for OPVs), NOT FRIGATES or even CORVETTES. They lack sonar, air search radar, any sam defence, can't Replenish underway to name just some issues and none of that can be cheaply or easily rectified. Sending them into something like the Gulf is a pointless waste of resources and would require protection from other nations without bringing anything of value to such operations.


There are plenty of areas where the NS can look for other missions, something like that is not something that should be considered. 90% of what you post doesn't make sense with what we have or likely to have, nor what we'd use the DF for.

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

90% of what you post doesn't make sense with what we have or likely to have, nor what we'd use the DF for.

90%??? :D:D:D

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

90%??? :D:D:D

I thought I'd be diplomatic.

jonnybigwallet

Ah Sparky! Terrific series of points covered there in your penultimate post! Of course nobody in their right minds would even consider sending a P60 down the Gulf single handed on account of issues you raised! Hence my suggestion that it could have nipped down there to accompany the three frigates currently on station thanks to France Netherlands and Germany, which would provide any air cover or other sophisticated AA and AS defences. Independently there are also two UK/US frigates in the immediate area as well. I do take your point about the P60 being in need of an upgrade with some enhanced radar and missile capabilities bolted on. Worth considering two of the fleet for upgrading.
All the same I think you are being a little harsh in your criticism of the ships capabilities as it has pretty good CIWS gear on board and an experienced crew. Considering the RN felt that the vastly inferior River class OPV would suffice for the maritime defence of the Falklands. Enjoy the rest of your day lads!

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Ah Sparky! Terrific series of points covered there in your penultimate post! Of course nobody in their right minds would even consider sending a P60 down the Gulf single handed on account of issues you raised! Hence my suggestion that it could have nipped down there to accompany the three frigates currently on station thanks to France Netherlands and Germany, which would provide any air cover or other sophisticated AA and AS defences. Independently there are also two UK/US frigates in the immediate area as well. I do take your point about the P60 being in need of an upgrade with some enhanced radar and missile capabilities bolted on. Worth considering two of the fleet for upgrading.
All the same I think you are being a little harsh in your criticism of the ships capabilities as it has pretty good CIWS gear on board and an experienced crew. Considering the RN felt that the vastly inferior River class OPV would suffice for the maritime defence of the Falklands. Enjoy the rest of your day lads!

There's no threat to the Falklands at all (the Argentinean Navy is a non force). Nor does the P6 have a CWIS system at all, and Irish experience for joint operations is limited. And again, there's little value to saying "here's a OPV, would you mind making sure your frigates stay close enough to protect them".

Psychlops

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

All the same I think you are being a little harsh in your criticism of the ships capabilities as it has pretty good CIWS gear on board

There is no CIWS on any Irish Naval Vessel. They do not have missiles fired at them.

sparky42

Well given the Labour returns, this isn't really going to be a thing anyway.

jonnybigwallet

I wasn't talking about missile defences. I was referring to secondary arnament such as the Rheinmetall cannon and the HMGs

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

I wasn't talking about missile defences. I was referring to secondary arnament such as the Rheinmetall cannon and the HMGs

Which are not a CWIS system, they are secondary weapons which would still be limited in any high intensity engagements.

jonnybigwallet

Somehow me last post hot deleted. I was just pointing out that the 20 ml Rheinmetall cannon is very effective against AIRCRAFT. Thats why the Luftwaffe use it to defend their bases.
Anyway. The chance of a squadron of Migs appearin over the hrizon are virtually nil on this mission. A few auld Arabs in RIBs with a Kalashnikov or two and a few hand grenades is a more likely scenario, so with the drone reconaissance vehicle on board and ready to detect any disreputable elements over the horizon then I reckon the lads could knock seven bells of Sh#t out of any threat with the HMGS and the 20 m and the oto melara. And with the air cover provided by other allied dorces sure there would be a flock of Apatches overhead on no time at all if needed.

sparky42

So you're talking Sh!te again then.

jonnybigwallet

Just another opinion.

Lord Fairlord

the_syco wrote: »

We don't have the money to pay the existing soldiers, so you want to buy aircraft?

We do have the money just not the will.
Just one example of where money could be saved elsewhere; in other countries their equivalent of the dole tapers off over time.

Psychlops

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

sure there would be a flock of Apatches overhead on no time at all if needed.

A flock of Apaches :pac:

jonnybigwallet

Well... I see Cathal Berry got elected as TD so I imagine even meself and Sparky could agree on that one and "Raise Three Rousin Cheers for Dan Kelly the Boy from Killan

Manic Moran

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Somehow me last post hot deleted. I was just pointing out that the 20 ml Rheinmetall cannon is very effective against AIRCRAFT. Thats why the Luftwaffe use it to defend their bases.

Why would a threat aircraft get to within range of a Rheinmetall 20mm on a ship?

At least with runway denial munitions, you have to fly right over the target. Besides, that was a 1972 acquisition, they've been withdrawn from service. Something about missiles and radar-directed guns being better.

Heraldoffreeent

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why would a threat aircraft get to within range of a Rheinmetall 20mm on a ship?

At least with runway denial munitions, you have to fly right over the target. Besides, that was a 1972 acquisition, they've been withdrawn from service. Something about missiles and radar-directed guns being better.

Because thats not how it's done in "Warlord" and "Battle and Action".

Larbre34

I wouldn't pay much attention to Labour's plan. Their idealogy is all about the public sector and spending big on all aspects for employment and wage levels. The DF mention is just that,vote hunting. Didn't work in any case.

Its excellent to have Cathal Berry as a TD nonetheless, both for pay and conditions as well as the profile and positioning of the DF in Irish society.

Leonidas BL

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Ah Sparky! Terrific series of points covered there in your penultimate post! Of course nobody in their right minds would even consider sending a P60 down the Gulf single handed on account of issues you raised! Hence my suggestion that it could have nipped down there to accompany the three frigates currently on station thanks to France Netherlands and Germany, which would provide any air cover or other sophisticated AA and AS defences. Independently there are also two UK/US frigates in the immediate area as well. I do take your point about the P60 being in need of an upgrade with some enhanced radar and missile capabilities bolted on. Worth considering two of the fleet for upgrading.
All the same I think you are being a little harsh in your criticism of the ships capabilities as it has pretty good CIWS gear on board and an experienced crew. Considering the RN felt that the vastly inferior River class OPV would suffice for the maritime defence of the Falklands. Enjoy the rest of your day lads!

I dont think you even read Sparkys explanation at all. One point was that the P60's cannot replenish underway. How the fork would a little OPV stay with three Frigates?? Think man, THINK FOR ONCE!!

jonnybigwallet

Simple. They would replenish from the main fleet. Or pop into a friendly harbour such Spain or Italy or Greece or even closer ports of call in area and bang bang bang! Job sorted!

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Simple. They would replenish from the main fleet. Or pop into a friendly harbour such Spain or Italy or Greece or even closer ports of call in area and bang bang bang! Job sorted!

OH FFS, No.