DF Commission Report

A bare bones C-295 doesn't offer a solution for genuine tactical airlift. It is simply too small to deploy armoured vehicles alongside troops, which may be necessary to bolster peace enforcement missions in future.

While I wouldn't refuse a good condition C-295 for use in utility transport - and more particularly to perform air ambulance services within Europe and leave the new MPAs to their primary role - I think our best bet is to enter a shared tactical airlift agreement of the sort already seen in central and Eastern Europe.

For instance, the remaining neutrals within the EU, ourselves, Austria, Malta and Cyprus could easily put an A400M or two into joint service or tag on the existing or an improved Austrian C-130K fleet.

If one is destroyed by the act of belligerent or otherwise written off by incident or accident in theatre. A loss of one or two APCs or AFVs in the Golan would render the deployed battalion unsafe and / or unable to perform tasks, even for a period.

In another scenario, if the ARW has to be deployed in response to circumstances, either abroad, or in a remote location domestically, the joint airlifting of personnel with a vehicle or vehicles may be needed, such as this ACMAT type, hardened mission support vehicle.

The C-295 cannot deploy so much as a Land Cruiser.

There is absolutely no justification for an airlifter domestically.

Peacekeeping is peacekeeping. Buying an aircraft to move a Mowag to Lebanon is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

A deployment of the ARW a la Afghanistan is legitimate, but the chances of a unilateral deployment are slim to none and only the largest militaries are capable of this sort of thing.

I agree with you re contributing to the EATC. An extra 295 makes some sense in that it supports the primary DF role of MPA at lower of cost. If it gets us occasional access to an A400M, let's do that.

I wouldn't imagine there is a particular issue that confuses between elite Garda and Army units - one is domestic civil policing, the other is green and black military taskings, including ATCP for terrorism or other threat to life and public safety, and the latter is VERY exceptional.

In terms of routine communications, intelligence and information sharing though, there has been a gap in terma of speed and quality identified for some time, and steps were taken to address this in recent years, though they did fly under the radar somewhat.

The National Security Committee has long existed, bringing together Senior Garda Brass, Defence Forces Chiefs, Sec Gens for Justice, Defence, Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach, but now a new Centre within the Taoiseach's Office operates wholly on matters of threat identification and mitigation and analysis of information flow.

This PQ of last year describes it best:

The Royal United Services Institute is an old school Tory-World think tank.

After Brexit, the Brits badly need allies of another slant in Europe (Johnson Ukraine relationship). You should take anything published by RUSI, even penned by an Irish fella, in that context.

While a better working relationship with GB is desirable, Ireland's wagon is firmly hitched to the EU on all fronts. London's polemicists will just have to get used to that.

Their vested interests are a British Conservative angle.

I get that thats their audience too, but pardon me if I judge the suggestion of a formal Irish / British Joint Expeditionary Force to be b0ll0x and totally outside the realistic conversation taking place about Irish defence matters.

No, but in all liklihood, not all those writings are comprehensive and/or contemporary.

I would still foresee a consultants assessment, working with the DF, before a tender is issued.

Completely agree. I wouldn't buy so much as a new Hyundai Van without first changing the paradigm on recruitment, pay, conditions and retention.

On top of reforming pay and allowances, I would be looking at time for training contracts, ie, if you join as an apprentice or pilot cadet, for example, and it takes 5 years to reach qualification, then you owe the DF five more years before you may leave. This is common practice in other roles in the public service, where in-service education is paid for.

I'd also like to seeing increasing association between the DF and other Third Level institutions, to establish an ROTC similar to the American model, while students are still studying, to identify talent and generate an interest in a DF career.

Wtf do you be smoking? Really, I'm asking.