DF Commission Report

Good idea to have most of the conversation about the report on the one page.

And guess what that lines up with? The Budget, getting Finance and the Cabinet to sign off on budget increases will take time, hopefully smaller things like the Union issue can be dealt with sooner, but was it ever reasonable for Coveney to come out today and announce a supplementary budget?

Looks more like from a management point of view. i.e, they are under the DoD instead of DoT. From an emergency planning POV, it makes sense.

No it would two medium class helicopters, at least adding two more 139s, maybe even get the mil spec ones instead of the green civvies we have. Ospreys are an entirely different animals.

Glad that at least we seem to have a complete report with sufficient historical analysis to realise that the continuing Defence attrition is down to those with a laissez-faire attitude towards required capability. The Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924 gives the duty of train, equip, and maintain the PDF to the MOD, his Council on Defence, and the Secretary as Chairman. It seems to me that the non-military members broke the mould and packed the other Council members out of the department to further afield and over time pruned structures, real estate, personnel, and capability to tighten Budgets. The whole Nature and capability of Service units has to some extent been neutered with visually pleasing hardware but with very little military purpose.

The upsetting realisation is that we once were near LOA 3 up to 1960's but failed to bring on board advancing military technology and opted for a system that used the hope of International Defence coverage from neighbours and powers far afield. If we don't make some effort we may find that nature abhorring a vacuum may replace our myopia with unwanted intrusions.

The starting point should be a Defence Budget that is separate from historic continuing payments to pensioners . Each year the budget should be fully spent across all subheads or used as a down payment for vital hardware or structures or systems.

I disagree. The current active participants are a core element who need to be there to build the organisation up again. But we need to reverse the last few reorgs and widen the Geographical spread. If you lived in mayo would you be arsed travelling to Galway or Donegal for training?

While there is some logic to co-locating all permanent units centrally, the same can not be said for a reserve force. Geographic spread is its strength, when needed most. There used to be a very active reserve unit in Castletownbere, at the edge of Ireland. It had access to a firing range and tactical training area on Bere Island. You just needed someone to bring the weapons from (at the time ) Ballincollig. Now the potential recruits from that community in west cork all have to make the 2 hour drive to Collins Barracks, Cork, even for a bit of foot drill.

The Report advises many changes to implement and add reality to achieve both White paper intentions and their own Levels of Ambitions proposals. We need, it seems, a partnership with a mentoring entity, perhaps a country or agency. In addition we need to formulise or re-establish training facilities at apprenticeship level and for the Navy a full range Diving Academy/School. In that regard we should include a training Tower to allow for divers to be deployed from depths and cover a future option for submarine training. I noticed recently that the City area of Singapore has 4 AIP Submarines and we own the submarine play grounds in the western Approaches to Europe.

They also have a conscript military of 70k active members and a budget several times the most ambitious of what is proposed so I’m not sure the relevancy of even using them as an example? In an ideal world where the state had paid anything more than lip service to defence at any point in the history of the state submarines might be something that Ireland might be willing and able to support. When our immediate goal is to have enough crews to use the hulls we have and our stretch goal is to have a few actual combat capable vessels in service, talking about submarines is fantasy fleet nonsense.

off the top of my head the smallest population wise nation to support subs in Europe is Norway with a population 5.4 million, a military of 20+k and a budget of over 7 billion dollars, so again twice the most optimistic budget, so how do you suggest we go from the most optimistic LoA to adding in a significant extra capital and manpower issue like generating subs, since one alone isn’t a worthwhile investment.

From the IT

Findings of the Commission on the Defence Forces which were criticised by Russia this week had been cleared by Government ahead of publication.

The commission’s report, which was published on Wednesday, cited instability on Europe’s borders as being a major threat to Irish security and quoted EU reports which were strongly critical of Russia.

This drew a sharp response from Russian ambassador to IrelandYuriy Filatov the next day who said the EU reports were “totally unfounded”.

“Any unbiased observer would be hard put to find any evidence of such a ‘threat’. Attempts to portray Russia as a boogie [sic] are misplaced and regrettable,” said the ambassador in a statement released by the Russian embassy.

It is understood members of the commission and Government officials were surprised by the ambassador’s comments as they had taken care only to cite official comments from EU reports, rather than introducing their own criticism

The section of the report dealing with potential external threats to Irish security, including from Russia, China and far-right and Islamic extremists, was vetted by Department of Foreign Affairs officials to avoid drawing Ireland into a dispute with other nations. The section was cleared by officials with no amendments.

Upgrading

The commission has recommended an overhaul and upgrading of almost all sections of the military to enable it to meet the tasks laid out for it by Government. This will cost, at a minimum, €500 million a year in the short term, and, if the most ambitious proposals are accepted, up to €3 billion a year.

It has also recommended wide-ranging cultural changes to increase the representation of women and minorities and to improve military working life. Many of these can be implemented at little to no extra cost

Over the coming months, the Department of Defence, in consultation with the Defence Forces, will refine the options laid out in the report to a series of proposals for which it will seek funding. That requires decisions about what the department and the Defence Forces want to do first.

“In order to get money from [the Department of Public Expenditure],” says one official, “we have to decide what we want the money for.”

It is understood the Minister for Defence, Simon Coveney, will spend some time consulting with officials and more extensively with all ranks in the Defence Forces to get their views on the priorities, and the realistic timescales for their implementation. In parallel with this, Mr Coveney will seek the backing of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, and the agreement of the Green Party, where concerns about neutrality abound.

Obvious difficulty

It is likely to be July before this process crystallises into a proposal to be put by Mr Coveney to the Department of Public Expenditure as part of the normal budgetary process. One obvious difficulty is that the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces will then have to compete with other departments, who also have their own asks, their own priorities, their own reform plans.

The report has recommended the establishment of an implementation oversight group, with an independent office and chair.

Someone tell me one thing in the LoA2 that would/could cause issues about neutrality outside of the insane version certain Irish politicians and parties have?

I guess we should know in the next 48 hours, if some reports are accurate.

On a scale of 1 to 100 where each recommendation of the CoDF is listed in order of importance, Air Policing is a firm 100, yet it is being discussed by many who should know better as if it was item 1, do not progress to 2 until 1 is complete.

LOA1 is just asking to improve systems and logistics continue the current capability. The CoDF have been emphatic in stating this is not sustainable, and to continue doing so does not provide for the basic level of security an Island state on the fringes of Europe (no longer having a land border to the EU, who's nearest neighbour isn't in the EU either) requires.

LOA2 seeks improvement in systems and equipment in order to deliver the MINIMUM capability a nation like us requires. In effect it's just Asking us to return defence spending to what it was in the 1980s, as a % of GDP, but still much lower that most of the EU. Increase staff numbers to levels where they aren't all double jobbing and working 70 hrs a week. To pay them a wage appropriate to the effort they make. (PBP says we should do this but not spend on Defence).

LOA 3 is flawed because it seeks to adequately equip the defence forces to the level expected by our own defence policy and overseas commitments.

There should have been an LOA 4 which requested the best available, at a % of spending expected of all other Neutrals in Europe, whether achieved by Joining NATO or remaining Neutral, which politically Ireland would never achieve..

Because in reality LOA3 is the minimum.

Exactly!

Well if the sun is right (and doesn’t that feel strange to type) Coveney might be pushing the cabinet for doubling the budget, so who knows.