Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

mbiking123

For aircraft we do not have jet fighters, but do have some aircraft. Must think outside of the box. IDF (Israel) pilots had to use Mirage Jet fighters against soviet jets in arab markings being flow by soviet fighter pilots. The IDF better training meant they won the dog fights despite the fact their equipment was not as good. IDF had to make do with Mirage and Phantom jets which are not designed for dogfights, they used them and won. One IDF pilot became an ace in one day. Must make do with what you have

Do what the soviets did with Badger-B aircraft, that really made US Navy nervous and refitted all their fleet with upgraded radar to protect against Kennel missle. they did not like the way it impacted ships from the vertical path. As far as I know only 4 were built but I cant be sure of this

In current climate I dont think we can afford eurofighter


very hard to protect against Al Queda type attacks, for example USS Cole in Yemen. We are fortunate that we are not a former colonial country and therefore dont have any baggage that goes with it, and as a neutral country I dont think anyone has any gripes against us apart from a few loyalists. This means that we are not targets the same way as Britain or the USA is. I think we should stay neutral-its safer that way. Given our debt no country will want to invade in any case. We dont have large reserves of oil,coal, gas,uranium, gold etc etc

jc84

ireland should protect itself and not expect other countries to do it for them, its fairly pathetic that it doesn't have adequate means to do so

mbiking123

but protect from who?

Kiki10

mbiking123 wrote: »

but protect from who?

Good question, sadly the answer is we are under lots of treats. Our most serious one initially is internal. Sometimes people cant see the wood from all the trees. Sinn Fein are committed communists, and have over the decades tried many methods of taking over the country. As in all country's infected with commies they try to recruit members & sympathy from the most naive, of society, university's, unemployed, venerable people.
A modern military in response, combats these treats using intelligence in the destruction of these elements. This is so far been successfully as we still have a democracy. Criminals are too getting more powerfully than the police thanks to the IRA and as such the military is required to combat these also.
Major crime organisations use Ireland as an entry point into Europe, the underpowered Navy are the only ones standing in there way. We cant blame them for the lack of success as there not provided with the resources.
Drugs are commonly flown into private air strips here, we cant blame our under resourced air force? We don't have the money for them {because we need it all for the HSE who tries to put a band aid on the gaping wound caused by the same drugs}
The Military of democratic country's are the mommy & daddy of the home. Any home without these go feral fairly quick.... 80 years after Independence were looking like succumbing to communism

Kiki10

ShotgunPaddy wrote: »

[Moderator's Note:

Yes, there's a Walter Mitty Forum for silliness like this, but the topic seems to keep coming up. Thus, this thread has been 'stickified' as the first pont of call for any complaints about the lack of Ireland's military capability, any other threads started on the subject will either be merged into this one, or moved to Walter Mitty.

The more creative your solution for the re-instatement of Ireland into a position of 'World Military Power', the better.

With comments like this its easy to see why Ireland is seen as soft touch by criminals & terrorists, The mockery of any public debate on this issue has been a corner stone of communists war on democracy since the Vietnam war . The naivety of young people with no experience of the world, has always been used by communists to voice objections to public protection. These same kids would not be allowed voice any opinion under the communists rule, yes in Ireland the communists are represented by sinn fein

mbiking123

the underpowered Navy are the only ones standing in there way. We cant blame them for the lack of success as there not provided with the resources.

Yes that is a fair point

Also note an Irish Naval Ship can only board a boat/ship/trawler for drugs etc in Irish territorial waters 12 miles off the coast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters. We have an economic zone however can only board boats/ships/trawlers that are involved in economic activity which does not included drugs/arms searches. Unless the ship/boat/trawler is Irish registered

International law for searching ships in International waters is

If the ship is flying a flag of the same country as the boarding party, ie if it it registered as an Irish ship for us to board

If the ship is not flying a flag, ie not registered so is a pirate ship or basically jolly roger

If a ship is involved or believed to be involved in the slave trade


So for example if a ship with a nuclear bomb was in our economic zone we can do nothing about it

Yes we need to increase our navy however only really effective to 12 miles off the coast. Can use force in International waters like Israel did but look at the mess they ended up in. To do a boarding in International waters could lead to an International crisis

goldie fish

mbiking123 wrote: »

Yes that is a fair point

Also note an Irish Naval Ship can only board a boat/ship/trawler for drugs etc in Irish territorial waters 12 miles off the coast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters. We have an economic zone however can only board boats/ships/trawlers that are involved in economic activity which does not included drugs/arms searches. Unless the ship/boat/trawler is Irish registered

International law for searching ships in International waters is

If the ship is flying a flag of the same country as the boarding party, ie if it it registered as an Irish ship for us to board

If the ship is not flying a flag, ie not registered so is a pirate ship or basically jolly roger

If a ship is involved or believed to be involved in the slave trade


So for example if a ship with a nuclear bomb was in our economic zone we can do nothing about it

Yes we need to increase our navy however only really effective to 12 miles off the coast. Can use force in International waters like Israel did but look at the mess they ended up in. To do a boarding in International waters could lead to an International crisis

I think you are wrong/mistaken there. Where was Dances with Waves first boarded?

mbiking123

goldie fish - I think you are wrong/mistaken there. Where was Dances with Waves first boarded

good example yes I was right http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=37397-qqqx=1.asp "unregistered yacht Dances With Waves left Trinidad "

International law for searching ships in International waters is

If the ship is flying a flag of the same country as the boarding party, ie if it it registered as an Irish ship for us to board

If the ship is not flying a flag, ie not registered so is a pirate ship or basically jolly roger

If a ship is involved or believed to be involved in the slave trade

Not an international incident as it was not registered to any country

mbiking123

ok if you dont believe me

check out Convention of the high seas http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm
especially article 99 , 100 & 101

My explaination is simpler

But law does get more complicated if you want to read into it further

Piracy can include mutinity for example

If you get permission from the country were the ship is registered you can board. You would need evidence etc etc and permission. In the end up to the country were the ship is registered

Article108
Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances

1. All States shall cooperate in the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances engaged in by ships on the high seas contrary to international conventions.
2. Any State which has reasonable grounds for believing that a ship flying its flag is engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances may request the cooperation of other States to suppress such traffic.

another example where it is not so simple is

Right of hot pursuit

1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

but going off the subject now

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

except that its not a horse the Irish state fed very well.

Short version reply:

The Irish defence 'horse' is in fact a bit of gypsy looking pony with occasional thoroughbred pretensions. It would be better if it dropped the pretence. You are wrong to say its been starved, although at times benign neglect has been a bit of an issue. It would be nice if the owner rescued the auld nag from aimless foraging on the side of the ditches. And a bag of pony nuts or a couple of Mi-17s would be nice once in a while.

Av.

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

except that its not a horse the Irish state fed very well.

Long version reply.

It seems like now your core gripe is that the independent Irish state has never 'properly' resourced any Irish DF.

Well up to a point I agree with you-how could I not?

However, the fact of (a) meager resources and (b) a doubly poor spend and execution of same bags of tuppences, does not render invalid the sensible analysis that the core function of our DF has been and remains internal rather than external security.

What it suggests is that Ireland has been for most of its history a rather poor country…and is so now again. It also suggests that Ireland's administrative elite are not actually that good at executing policies sensibly. They can't spend small amounts of money wisely. There is a vague 'understanding' of what the policy is-often reasonable enough-but there is no planning to follow up.

It'll be grand. We're Irish.

It won't. We're manic depressives.

Yes our political class are venial and loathsome. We share this with many countries-Zimbabwe, Mexico, Nigeria all come to my mind for some reason these days….wonder why? :rolleyes:

However, I'm not sure I'd always blame the politicians for our woeful defence policy/capacity……its soooooo easy to blame political leaders…but who voted for them?

I'd add a few other points for you to consider.

1. After the failed Officer's mutiny of 1924, a culture developed in the Civil Service and especially within the civilian DoD of 'sit on the army-make sure they don't ever get above themselves with notions'. This translated into 'stifle anything' other than a 'status quo' mode of operation.

That poison is still with us today.

2. The Civil Service allowed Dev to cut the 1930s army to bone…indeed at one stage Finance were saying we should actively disarm…..yet amazingly we were able to cobble together 2 very rough divisions by end of 1940…….by no means were these effective forces…but they provided just enough of a marginal deterrent effect (combined with bad weather and basic geography) to convince the Germans in summer 1940 an invasion of Ireland would have been madness (plus the not trivial effectiveness of the RN let's be honest), or more likely the British from November 1940….until the US entered the war openly. The same marginal deterrence effect applied as regards the possible US Invasion of the south from NI, prior to Operation Torch in 1943. We simply weren't worth the hassle…but if they really wanted to…they would have invaded us easily enough. But if we didn't have even two 'ropy' divisions, and just a few gendarme battalions say, they may well have been tempted……….

3. With war looming in Europe from 1936, various 1930s plans for improvements were all killed off by Finance mandarins because of lack of money. However, the top Brass were their own worst enemies proposing very expensive unrealistic plans for conventional land forces modeled on BA models…..when a much greater spend on coastal, AA and other such defences would have represented better value. We're still doing 'let's buy stuff like other proper armies such as the BA'…in small penny packets…when we may be better off not buying such stuff at all…the purchase of PC-9 trainers comes to mind……And why try and emulate the standard of gear that proper armies have when cheaper "Borat" gear might well suffice? .We’re still a DF with far too much say given to land forces with an excessive conventional big country 'land army' mindset……we should be making a policy to rotate Chiefs of Staff from air, naval and land branches. And we should perhaps emulate and learn more from small countries and their solutions-New Zealand, Finland-and more USMC to learn from, rather than US Army? etc.

4. One reason why unconventional tactics and partisan structures-basically turning the Irish Df into something a bit like the Swiss militia- were probably not experimented with was because of the legacy of the civil war and the belief that an utterly reliable professional barracks based army was what was needed to secure the state from subversion. That also explains why you end up with so many poxy barracks spread all over the country-it is not just because some gombeen TD wants the army vote. By the way the 'garrison patterning' was inherited directly from the BA prior to 1922 and was a direct legacy of the 1867 Fenian uprising.

Remember, that throughout the 1930s the IRA remained active, drilling, running camps and collecting arms. Hard to estimate, but perhaps they could have relied on thousands of armed 'volunteers'. And embarrassingly, they did nick a massive amount of Irish army ordnance at one stage……

5. Ireland was approached about NATO membership in 1949. One of history's ironies was that we were then governed then by an odd 'inter party coalition'…..with ex-IRA 1930s Chief of Staff MacBride as minister for foreign affairs!!! You could NOT make this up!!! He basically said we would join if the UK agreed to hand back the six counties-just like that. Of course, he was told to drop dead. We were bypassed as a 'marginal freak show' led by glove puppets. Somehow that description seems apt today. NOTE….. We could easily be governed again by a weak inter party coalition with an ex-IRA man making key decisions!!!!!!

6. When the violence in NI really accelerated from August 1969 onwards….there was a notable increase in Irish army activity and resources. By 1973 the new FG (arguably always a bit more pro-Army than FF) and Labour coalition increased defence spending again. Runty little Panhard APCs and Armoured cars were got in reasonable quantity. New battalions were created and deployed to the border in new posts. Simple but effective observation aircraft were got (the Cessna 172s)….hardly impressive as build ups go…but resources were increased up to an adequate level…..and remember the ethos was to allow the Garda special branch primacy to deal with the provos (etc.) using low tech but effective HUMINT (usually a few £20 notes and some drinks worked wonders). Equally after the shock of the scale of Libyan arms smuggling in the mid 1980s, money was found with help from HM Treasury perhaps for 2 ex-RN OPVs to augment the Cork built FPVs……

The point? The Irish state has increased defence resources to match internal security threats ……whereas other defence capabilities have been let slip either because they cost too much or because they have no obvious internal security utility…e.g. the drizzle of a few fast jets and medium tanks from the 1950s………

Other assets were got from direct overseas PK experience--for example the Pirhana's built on experience with the Finnish 6x6 APCs in the Leb and I think Somalia [?], etc., regarding mines.

The Visit of the Pope 1979 got us a wonderful Puma with radar..and when he was gone we sent it back again! (Am I right?).

Of course we should have had 20 of these, but by 1981 Irish unemployment had soared. Talk of the IMF, etc? Sound familiar?


There was a brief flurry of speculation about NATO membership once we joined the 'Common Market' in 1973 and later in the early 1980s. There was also a FF led increase in defence gear during the late 1970s..early 1980s… Scorpions, RBS70s, Milans and 105mm were got around this time for example.

Many in FG probably believed NATO entry would come in time. Carl O'Sullivan raised the topic publically from a 'top brass' point of view and he was rudely told to keep quite and watch his pension. The old 1924 culture reasserted itself-stifling any debate from serving or ex-serving personnel (more or less).

And so……there is a reason why 'we are where we are'.

I like it when you point out loads of lessons and professionalism we could be learning from BA, and others.

I would agree complacency should never be accepted-Irish DF and Def policy could be massively improved.

But that will have to happen most likely within two major constraints-a policy of neutrality and a chronic absence of money. Neither prevents us some room for improvement-but they do put limits on what is do-able/sensible.

For example, I simply don't buy it that we should volunteer our forces for service in Astan or Iraq-these are failed or failing missions and we have no money to resource our troops to meet even basic safety levels there, even if gifted a quite zone.

Internal security remains our DF bread and butter and getting that right should never be taken for granted. It is a valid mission and not always as easy as it seems. Any view that it is 'beneath proper soldiering' (much like COIN used to be seen in some armies) is utter nonsense.

When and if we go overseas for PK, it follows we should specialize towards the lighter end of the spectrum of operations. Having said that, some of what used to be considered appropriate for lighter situations now probably requires 'heavier' assets and resources. There is a job of work there in not only making Irish PK forces more 'robust' and 'interoperable', but also communicating to the great [indifferent] Irish public that neutrality does not mean pacifism nor that our DF can avoid very nasty situations where force will have to be used if UN mandates are to be achieved.

Pragmatic co-op with EU and NATO in PK and joint procurement represents a better way of proceeding than any 'shock therapy' of joining NATO outright and sending the 4th inf bn off to Helmand en masse.

As you like to say, who is really smoking crack here, OS119?

Av.

mbiking123

By 1973 the new FG (arguably always a bit more pro-Army than FF) and Labour coalition increased defence spending again.

Strange I always heard the opposite, however going to be cutbacks now-does not matter who is in

The Visit of the Pope 1979 got us a wonderful Puma with radar..and when he was gone we sent it back again! (Am I right?).

Pleased to say I saw it in Baldonnel, well after the Pope was gone. The Air Corps had it on lease and it was extended.

nternal security remains our DF bread and butter and getting that right should never be taken for granted. It is a valid mission and not always as easy as it seems. Any view that it is 'beneath proper soldiering' (much like COIN used to be seen in some armies) is utter nonsense.

Different armed forces/defence forces have different 'doctrine' . The Irish have gone down the road of peacekeeping, the Brits went down the same road too. US doctrine was basically a war machine. Very different but going off subject

mbiking123

ex-serving personnel (more or less)

Once your gone your gone, say what you like

mbiking123

I like it when you point out loads of lessons and professionalism we could be learning from BA, and others.

Eh-not doing soo well in Afghanistan

Locals prefer US

on Wiki-leaks

mbiking123

I would agree complacency should never be accepted-Irish DF and Def policy could be massively improved.

Can you explain this point ? What problems are there with Defence Forces policy, and policy on what do you refer ?

mbiking123

very nasty situations where force will have to be used if UN mandates are to be achieved

Was a proposal for UN to go into Northern Ireland during the troubles and British used their veto

If you dont have oil am afraid wasting you time, took long enough for something to be done about Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia problem.

What about Africa ? Free for all there, women being raped etc etc

Dont mention NGO's please dont !!!!! end up off subject otherwise

Avgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

Pleased to say I saw it in Baldonnel, well after the Pope was gone. The Air Corps had it on lease and it was extended.

Was it not gone by 1981 though? I'm a bit hazy on it...when exactly they got the chop....should ask Steyr I suppose....

mbiking123

There on a school tour, still remember it. But am afraid not the dates

I saw the Pope and the helicopter but well apart , I can remember other kids saying that's Haughey's Plane and pointing at the government jet

Poccington

mbiking123 wrote: »

Eh-not doing soo well in Afghanistan

Locals prefer US

on Wiki-leaks

They're doing well enough that we still to this day send troops over to the Brits to complete the likes of the PSBC, PCBC etc.

OS119

mbiking123 wrote: »

Eh-not doing soo well in Afghanistan

Locals prefer US

on Wiki-leaks

you mean an Afghan, speaking to an American diplomat with a wedge of cash in his pocket, said that he prefered American troops?

i am litterally struck dumb with shock. oh, hang on...

mbiking123

you mean an Afghan, speaking to an American diplomat with a wedge of cash in his pocket, said that he prefered American troops?

i am litterally struck dumb with shock. oh, hang on...

no because the british troops stay in their barracks/base and dont venture out

Poccington

mbiking123 wrote: »

no because the british troops stay in their barracks/base and dont venture out

Ah now here.

One thing the Brits can't be accused of in A'Stan is hiding in an FOB. That's just lies.

concussion

mbiking123 wrote: »

no because the british troops stay in their barracks/base and dont venture out

Utter crap. Tell that to the 1,500 or so who have been wounded in action since 2006. IED's account for approx 70% of casualties in Afghanistan, I suppose the Taliban must be placing bombs under beds, behind the tea and inside FHM's then?

mbiking123

They spoke out after it emerged that Afghan leaders had told the Americans that British troops were “not up to the task” of fighting the Taliban in Helmand Province, scene of the bloodiest battles of the conflict, and had “made a mess of things”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8179684/WikiLeaks-portrayal-of-British-troops-effectiveness-in-Afghanistan-unfair.html

Poccington

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8179684/WikiLeaks-portrayal-of-British-troops-effectiveness-in-Afghanistan-unfair.html

That's great but the article refers to troops being under resourced, it says nothing about the troops ability or will to get into the fight.

mbiking123

Karzai is recorded as saying that after the arrival of just 14 US special forces in 2001 it was safe soon afterwards: ”Even Helmand was safe for girls to go school. Now, 4,000 [sic] British soldiers are in Helmand and the people are not safe”.
The UK military effort in Helmand was also criticised by top US officials. In late 2008, the US embassy said that without American support “we and Karzai agree the British are not up to the task of securing Helmand”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/wikileaks-reveals-us-and-afghan-scorn-for-british-military-2010-12/

OS119

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/wikileaks-reveals-us-and-afghan-scorn-for-british-military-2010-12/

Karzai talks ****. the man is a congenital liar - and as wikileaks has also said 'he is a man deranged by his own paranoia'.

the man is so bent that if he ate a nail, he'd **** a corkscrew.

as Concussion has already noted (and i thank him for it) UK casualties are demonstratably being caused by weapons that could only be effective if UK forces are outside their patrol bases.

mbiking123

I like it when you point out loads of lessons and professionalism we could be learning from BA, and others.

This is what started this side-discussion

Ok I see your point and I dont want to go off thread. A Para lost his life yesterday and I dont want to end up in some kind of slagging match as its unfair on those individuals who were doing their 'job' and achieves nothing

Just cause you send someone to learn off to a certain army does not mean it will make you better. The French and British army had better and more tanks at the start of WWII, however German tactics were better and they were always playing catch up after that with technology. At the start of the war they would have said they had best tactics however it did not take long to find out they were not.

Irish DF are best placed to see what suits them best. For example the Irish DF went with the steyr which is still in use. The British army went with SA80 at the same time. In the end the SA80 was completly redesigned by H&K I believe. The British army certainly have an excellent weapon however the development certainly cost alot. I dont think the Irish DF could have afforded such a change. The Steyr turned out to be a cheaper option than the SA80 which was considered

OS119

if you think anyone is suggesting that the IA purchase the L85A2 you've obviously not read any of the threads that Avgas is talking about.

slagging something down without finding out what it is, and, by the way, being frightening wrong in your assumption about what it is, makes you look like an arrse.

mbiking123

if you think anyone is suggesting that the IA purchase the L85A2 you've obviously not read any of the threads that Avgas is talking about.

slagging something down without finding out what it is, and, by the way, being frightening wrong in your assumption about what it is, makes you look like an arrse.

?

Did the SA80 have problems, for example on earlier versions the magazine release catch was on the side. troops in NI used boot laces and tied the magazines to their jackets. So if magazine fell off they would not loose the magazine. By putting the rifle across the body the magazine release catch could catch on the jacket. Had a straight magazine that was replaced with a curved type etc etc

alot of problems with that weapon, Irish DF got one weapon and still in service. where are those original SA80's ? Not that I really care. Must have hit a soft spot

Anyhow going off subject,

OS119

mbiking123 wrote: »

?


alot of problems with that weapon, Irish DF got one weapon and still in service. where are those original SA80's ? Not that I really care. Must have hit a soft spot

Anyhow going off subject,

err... no, you read a comment by Avgas about information being posted that could/should help the DF stay current with evolving combat trends - you then gripped a non-existant stick, assumed that this meant that people were saying 'ditch the Steyr and go for L85A2' and honked off about how the DF had nothing to learn from anyone because the SA80 has had a troubled service record...

unfortunately no one has mentioned the SA80 in any of the threads that Avgas is talking about.

punchdrunk

just to point out the popes Puma and papa 242 were different aircraft
I believe the pope's visit involved one leased from the Bundeswehr

we leased the luxury aircraft built for Haile Selassie but he'd died before it was finished,aerospatiale didn't know what to do with it so a couple of years later they leased it to us,delivered in the summer of '81
(I was sat in the pilots seat when I was six weeks old )

it was loved by the crews,definitely the best spec chopper we ever had in the IAC alas the bean counters sent it back :mad:

mbiking123

err... no, you read a comment by Avgas about information being posted that could/should help the DF stay current with evolving combat trends - you then gripped a non-existant stick, assumed that this meant that people were saying 'ditch the Steyr and go for L85A2' and honked off about how the DF had nothing to learn from anyone because the SA80 has had a troubled service record...

unfortunately no one has mentioned the SA80 in any of the threads that Avgas is talking about.

I only making the point that you could send soldiers to the UK for training, receive good training but find its not appropriate for the Irish Defence forces. The Irish DF tested rifles and found the Steyr to be most appropriate. The current BA rifle is possibly better. The cost to get there would have potentially proved too expensive for Ireland.

Learning best practices is obviously important and the British army has the advantage of speaking the same language as the Irish DF for courses etc. The RN has learnt from the Falklands San Carlos incident, land troops and then get out immediately. Good information to learn but I dont think Irish DF will be doing any landings on this scale

The IDF raid on Entebee was done with help from SAS as they had experience in the area. This experience was proven from the embasssy siege. Good advice is good, but must be careful not to get lead astray. What may suit an armed force may not suit another one. The SAS room entry has been adopted by all western armies, and yet soviet do it slightly different. The SAS style is to divide up room bit like an arc of fire (thats my understanding) while soviet move apart to each corner as they enter door(once again my understanding) different techniques so whicg one should the Irish DF use ? I would imagine Western style. SAS peep around corners move steadily, while soviet will actually make a leap around a corner 'wesley snipes' hollywood style and do rolls, tumbles etc. SAS dont as have armour on etc. This is only my understanding but two different armies do it differently. You choose which one is correct

goldie fish

punchdrunk wrote: »

just to point out the popes Puma and papa 242 were different aircraft
I believe the pope's visit involved one leased from the Bundeswehr

we leased the luxury aircraft built for Haile Selassie but he'd died before it was finished,aerospatiale didn't know what to do with it so a couple of years later they leased it to us,delivered in the summer of '81
(I was sat in the pilots seat when I was six weeks old )

it was loved by the crews,definitely the best spec chopper we ever had in the IAC alas the bean counters sent it back :mad:

Popes Puma was Bundesgrenshutz. The old West german Border Police. Had Bugger fuel tanks on the sponsons. Don't think the Air Corps had any involvment, apart from providing a navigator.

The plan was to buy 2 Super Pumas when we returned 242, but as usual, someone in DoD is afraid of big helicopters, and they decided to get Non Naval Dauphins instead....

Avgas

There are loads of things we could be training with BA for-Blue on Blue state of the art is one pet topic I have in mind, but also building in low-level integrated IED EOD tactics, training and awareness is another. Mind you we have some boys over in Astan who are a dab hand at IEDS/EOD and doubtless have interesting tales to tell and lessons to impart...but I wouldn't know about any of that.

Suggestions that BA were sun-tanning in Helmand are a joke-some of the toughest fighting since Korea by all accounts. Just listening to vets of that would transform any RDF camp, no?

The SA80 connection...I dunno where you picked up that. In small arms what we'd be learning from the BA would merits/demerits of integration of DMR and LMG.. use of 'multiples' as OS119 was educating "armchair types" like me a few posts back, etc..........the actual rifle is more or less irrelevant as long as it works (does now for BA).

The big advantage of the BA is that because they lack sheer scale of resources and tech the US forces routinely have-that means they have to be innovative and resources are more limited and perhaps husbanded better and employed with a dose of more robust/austere logistical reality-which is closer to our world/reality where resources are Santa Claus wish lists for the most part. Yet having said that most Irish DF would weep in envy at some of assets and the scale of issue of gear which BA regularly get to play with. So its not like training with the Maltese Army....but neither do we feel totally 'unplugged' say if we had to play with a gizmo'd up Stryker brigade and all associated toys. Poor peasants that we are.

Cheers. Citizen Av.

PS. Language is not that big an issue-most of Nordic lads and lassies AFAIK speak more than passable Swedish chef type manglais......probably more understandable than somebody from Cork.:)......Inside the BA you'll find a healthy sprinkling of Welsh, and quite a bit of Fijian as well, and I'd venture Spanish would come in handy inside the US army these days-even though official language is 100% American.

mbiking123

Just listening to vets of that would transform any RDF camp, no?

Transform it into what ?

punchdrunk

goldie fish wrote: »

Popes Puma was Bundesgrenshutz. The old West german Border Police. Had Bugger fuel tanks on the sponsons. Don't think the Air Corps had any involvment, apart from providing a navigator.

The plan was to buy 2 Super Pumas when we returned 242, but as usual, someone in DoD is afraid of big helicopters, and they decided to get Non Naval Dauphins instead....

cheers Goldie,thought it was German alright,


here's poor old P242 these days,looks like she was used as a testbed

Avgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

Transform it into what ?

words like RELEVANT, STIMULATING, SOBERING...all come to mind.:rolleyes:

mbiking123

words like RELEVANT, STIMULATING, SOBERING...all come to mind.

All of that from a few war stories ?

Did not know RDF camps that bad

OS119

mbiking123 wrote: »

All of that from a few war stories ?

Did not know RDF camps that bad

show a few videos and put an RDF platoon through an explosive ambush and 18 hour moving contact - yeah i think that might have a sobering effect.

mbiking123

Just listening to vets of that would transform any RDF camp, no?

this is what was initially said to transform a RDF camp, which is alot different from -show a few videos and put an RDF platoon through an explosive ambush and 18 hour moving contact

OS119

mbiking123 wrote: »

this is what was initially said to transform a RDF camp, which is alot different from -show a few videos and put an RDF platoon through an explosive ambush and 18 hour moving contact

bit pedantic and argumentative aren't we?

Poccington

Mbiking, if all you're going to do is troll this thread or not contribute to it at all, well then don't post in it.

mbiking123

Mbiking, if all you're going to do is troll this thread or not contribute to it at all, well then don't post in it.

eh, its all on one page - troll the thread ?

mbiking123

bit pedantic and argumentative aren't we?

no

Morpheus

put an RDF platoon through an explosive ambush

this is actually Coming to an RDF unit near you soon! along with C-IED training (",)

Poccington

Morphéus wrote: »

this is actually Coming to an RDF unit near you soon! along with C-IED training (",)

I see the Unit decided to leave out the 18 hour moving contact.

kevinhalvey

its proboly been discussed but there is a point just say a nation did attack and for example they had themselves a few mig`s i dont think that this http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Irish%2520Defence%2520Force/b16cb2b6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php%3F182130-Weekend-Pixs-3rd-and-4th-July-2010&usg=__MV1Wq0LTnAw7OGQeWpQjhJePj8E=&h=426&w=640&sz=45&hl=en&start=18&sig2=c6ohT966NeM6HtGbUz9h9A&zoom=1&tbnid=VztiTMbqK2nZ9M:&tbnh=128&tbnw=171&ei=T5Q8TebVEMGv8gPrsLmrCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dirish%2Bair%2Bdefense%2Bweapon%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D589%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C342&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=679&oei=SZQ8TczSAsb54AbwkdSDAg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:18&tx=57&ty=61&biw=1366&bih=589 will take it down nor can the df engage them in these http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.salthillairshow.com/iac_pc9m/images/263_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.salthillairshow.com/iac_pc9m/index.html&usg=__hdMnZ3H_X5DQOudc5xYuOyxEE6s=&h=400&w=600&sz=42&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zbDS0rj7xnOMpR2Nwxvqfw&zoom=1&tbnid=UvSxosFgDJIvpM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=173&ei=iZQ8Tb6OKcf04QaTxdmwCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dirish%2Bair%2Bcorps%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D589%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=910&vpy=117&dur=3881&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=161&ty=115&oei=iZQ8Tb6OKcf04QaTxdmwCg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0 i would say a spit fire would have a better chance but at least we have a decent enough army

mbiking123

its probably been discussed but there is a point just say a nation did attack and for example they had themselves a few mig`s i dont think that this http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=h...w=1366&bih=589 will take it down nor can the df engage them in these http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=h...1t:429,r:4,s:0 i would say a spit fire would have a better chance but at least we have a decent enough army

the spitfire(when new) was slower than the Pilatus PC-9M

the weapon is a bofors L/70 (I think) http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/weapons/arty/l70/l70.htm

"Breda (now Oto Melara) of Italy uses the Bofors 40 mm L/70 gun in its anti-aircraft weapon system for the Italian Army and Navy"

http://www.search.com/reference/Bofors_40_mm_gun

its a standard military weapon in use by alot of countries, the picture showed members of the reserve shooting it. RDF formely called the FCA

concussion

The DF info page is woefully out of date, and the L/70 is the gun on the old mount. Ours are EL 70 with a motorised carriage and radar fire control. Much more capable altogether. Radar is capable of detecting and tracking high speed targets, gun is well capable of tracking them - whether it works in the real world is the big question though.