Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Future of warfare (How should Ireland build their millitary)

Options
24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I never understand why a potential future unification situation somehow gets connected to NATO membership tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Can't we deal with the Mission Statement issued from the Department for Defence, described as Defence Strategy 2021-2023. The main duty signed off by MOD, COS, and Secretary General DOD, is to defend the nation from aggression and provide for in addition ATCP and ATCA.

    Defending a nation from aggression seems to me a clear cut task. you can vary elements of that task by having an MOU with somebody else to do it with you or even for you. It would not be free and may include allowing foreign personnel and equipment on our territory. I say do it ourselves with aid from the EU in equipment and training only.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    You could, but that's not neutrality. The RAF MoU is not neutrality.

    It amazes me the number of posters here and indeed people at large in Ireland, who don't understand that neutrality is mere words on the breeze, if you cannot assert it.

    Neutrality means keeping out of third party conflicts, but it also means being able to protect everything you are responsible for, entirely on your own. Go and read up on the historical defence spending of Sweden, Switzerland and Austria from 1960 to 2020 and compare it to what we didn't spend. That's where the gap is.

    And in terms of aggression, it comes in many forms that aren't foreign military. Drugs and organised crime, political sedition, conspiracy with foreign actors, cyber attacks and compromised data, espionage conducted on our territory, etc, etc, etc



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,427 ✭✭✭jackboy


    The Swiss do spend a lot but their strategy if invaded is realistic. They would not resist the invasion other than making things awkward by blowing bridges etc. They would let the invaders take the main population centres without a fight. Their strategy is basically to use the mountains as a base and conduct the war from there. This means far less civilian casualties and more efficient destruction of enemy forces. It’s a long term plan to make occupation a nightmare rather than stop invasions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    We each have our geopolitical and geographical challenges.

    Ours come from sitting in the middle of submarine alley and under the busy Atlantic sky lanes and alongside the communications cables that power the European-North American interrelationship - and we have some degree of responsibility for all three.

    It doesn't change the basic premise.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭chuchuchu


    it is much easier to defend than attack, expecially since we are an island. The attackers would need to be multiple times larger. And the point of drones UAV, is that people wouldnt have to die despite us been a small population. The other is the fear factor, no army will attack if they know it will come at a high cost. The Russians playing war games of the coast of Cork is showing that they have no respect for our current military situation



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,804 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    You need to plan for a worst case scenario…

    have and not need is a better situation then need and not have.

    problem is without a deterrent which we have nothing of…

    no air force, the Aer Corps with only a logistical and support function. No jet fighters…not one

    the Navy with 7-8 ships,…..over 27,000 squared kilometres of territorial waters surrounding us….

    We are an island on the edge of Europe, a tactical and logistical benefit to any aggressor or foe of Europe .



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    An air corps who's logistical function amounts to 3 aircraft that can carry about a cubic metre of freight each, and 2 others that can bring passengers or larger quantities of freight over a longer distance, but no further than the EU without refuelling.

    9 ships commissioned at present, of which 3 are awaiting disposal and have not gone to sea in at least 2 years. 2 of whom will be replaced by April of next year, and the other who's replacement will be announced "shortly".

    No eyes in the sky, the bare minimum eyes at sea, none under the surface of the sea.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    'Have and not need' is not an argument that will fly with the average Irish person.

    If the Government secure funds to achieve LoA 2.5 with a view to further increases as the DF capacity to take on new capabilities grows bigger, it will be a serious achievement in itself.

    While scenario planning is very important, they'll be aiming for the middle ground of 'most likely', not 'worst case' and that's what the Commission report is all about. Worst case scenarios are the longest of odds.

    And even right now, look at the successes Ukraine are having against a big old style mechanised force. The old maxims are out the window. All over the World, Governments will be looking at their standing armies and thinking, are these people any use to me, or should I invest in smart, small and mobile?

    We're lucky in that respect, we have a chance to begin our serious investment with almost a blank sheet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    They have bunkers with weapons ready for use also tank parks for similar use. They have mountain passes and bridges mined and ready. Men of fighting age have to spend 2-4 weeks in training each year for the reserves. I don't think that indicates their cities going down without a fight?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,427 ✭✭✭jackboy


    I worked with lots of Swiss in an old job I had and they said that was the plan. They said it was because defending cities would cause mass civilian casualties and destruction of the cities and they would lose anyway so no point. It sounded like their military was really cold and calculated, all about causing maximum pain to the invaders but not giving their own lives cheaply.


    Who knows, maybe things will change after what we are seeing in Ukraine. I assume all militaries in the world will try to reset after this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    They also have overpasses built for being used for supporting their fighters, which will be F35s of course.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    The emerging philosophy for Defence is join a reliable Military Alliance. I am worried about the overall reliance of NATO given that it's Superpower member was late joining in both WW1, and WW11. They were also tardy in meeting the needs of Ukraine which were met from Day 1 by its Neighbours and the EU in general. The US reliability will depend largely on the Party in Power and who is in control of the Legislative Houses. Those with similar views to Trump could wind up abstaining from needed concerted action. We should strive to join a strong EU alliance and share all aspects of the Defence of Europe at Military, Trade, Medical, Banking and Cyber Security Levels.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    How we should build our military requires us to consider a number of points. Since we don't have a specific Arms industry we must select a constant source of arms from an agreeable steady supplier/country. It implies a certain amount of interaction including training with source countries. All would be easier if our build up included training at formation level with friendly nations on a regular basis.

    Historically our neutrality emanated from a reluctance to join any alliance that included Britain who was seen as an occupier of part of our country. Finding a way around that conundrum will support a worthwhile military advancement. Perhaps bilateral pacts with those that are agreeable?



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    bad news again today via media, highlighting the reduction in capability due to Technician shortage. perhaps we need in the first place to mitigate shortages by ceasing to close Apprenticeship Schools and introduce a quota scheme for departures at all levels of skills.

    The RN after swingeing cuts in personnel met long term needs by contracting BAE Systems to "run" certain parts of the Fleet. They have BAE doing day to day maintenance on 10 Minesweepers, 8 HUNT Class and two SANDOWN. Six are in Plymouth, all HUNT Class, and 4 are in Middle east, 2 Hunt and 2 Sandown. It is a complete maintenance system including GRP hulls and a reengining programme. To augment they have a ready to go RN Forward maintenance team that can deploy in support when necessary.

    Needed assets must Not remain unused in times of need.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,871 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    No Western army will attack if it comes at a high cost. The Chinese treatment of its citizens during COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine show that high cost is not an issue for some.



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    When will a western alliance attack. When it is clear you must roll the En up and push back. North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, and crossing the Rhine, comes to mind. The bigger problem is the current potential to leave a divided nation behind with bits excised and have a festering future like North South Korea, North South Vietnam, and of course Ireland. It is still festering in India and the Punjab. Map redraws are future wars. It leaves deterrence and self defence as the only option short of war. It also puts the wisdom of soft Power in prospect. Better to help your neighbour in good days and bad and avoid wrecking his property and killing his kith and kin.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    West Cork fishermen win again!

    First Putin now Macron.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    If you believe that, I have a nice bridge to sell you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭saabsaab




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭Dohvolle




  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Just a few figures for parliament to consider now that our population has reached 5.1 million. If we use a percentage basis to calculate the size of defence Forces, we should be thinking somewhere between 1% and 0.5%. At the lower figure we should aspire to 25,000 including reservists. This implies that we must provide development room for expansion and stop selling off or repurposing Military real estate. It is important that we decide how big to ensure that we equip in proportion and become operationally relevant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,593 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    In Regards to Military property

    Would we not nearly better off starting from scratch and Building 6/8 new modern purpose built bases located at what ever the military leadership deam stratgeic locations which include good standard living quarters instead of spending arm and leg on military installation network that was designed centurys ago for an occuping Military force rather than a Modern Irish Defence Forces



  • Registered Users Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Possibly, but I don't trust hidden agenda's and grandiose repurposing of FREE Defence lands. I agree we need to build fit for purpose barracks and naval bases. Counting all vessels, including ones in the Mortuary, we need space for 9 medium ships , plus one MRV, two NZ Craft, and 4 coastal craft. Right now we need a substantial second Port of Refuge for all our ships plus suitable shore based buildings for personnel, stores and Command.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭Dohvolle


    Some of you may remember about 2 decades back there were plans for a super prison next door to Kilworth Camp. The Prison never materialised (another failed election promise) The land however is still in Government hands I believe. It is ideally located next to the former Dublin road and would be an ideal greenfield site to maybe give the Air Corps a hq in Munster, or even to be used for building single occupancy accommodation for members of the DF working in either Collins Barracks or Haulbowline.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,593 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    You could nearly close Collins and Sarsfield and instead of super prison at Kilworth have a Major Military Base servicing all of Munster



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Thats true. Superb facility Kilworth. Envy of many of our European allies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭nokpam


    We need missile detectors and radar at the least; we could at least pretend to know what's going on in the world! That Russia was testing missiles off the coast of Ireland in February, followed by France also testing missiles in the same location more or less just last week is not a coincidence.

    Or we could just hope that Britain will protect us as usual and then declare ourselves to be neutral but rebels. Rebels me hole.

    It's shorter from Ireland to NY or DC than it is from other ends of Russia.

    Tax in the UK is far less than in Ireland yet they are extremely well armed. They do owe us one but I think that we're strategically a very weak spot.



  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭nokpam


    Basically, our waters are closer to NY than if Russia tried to bomb the other way around i.e going clockwise.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭nokpam


    We're claiming helplessness. It's tiring and embarrassing. Finland is now joining NATO. Ukraine invited to join the EU along with Moldova. Ireland doesn't appear to have the remotest clue as to what is going on. RTE has a lot to answer for.

    If you don't read multiple media sources, you're essentially just reading propaganda.



Advertisement