Review of Defence Forces to be published in next few days

easkey92

The review is now being considered by Minister for Defence Alan Shatter, who ordered the shake-up as part of last December's Budget.
The review was carried out by Chief of Staff Lt Gen Sean McCann and Secretary General of the Department of Defence Michael Howard.
It is expected that military chiefs from around the country and representative groups will briefed later today.
The main focus for the reorganisation is the reduction in the number of brigades, or operational units, in the country from three to two.
It has already been announced that the headquarters for the two new brigades will be in Cork and Dublin. There is much local annoyance in Athlone that it is losing out.
Mr Shatter has said that the strength of the Defence Force numbers should be 9,500, which is down from about 15,000 at the height of the Troubles.
However, the detail of the plan could involve less promotional outlets for officers and others as the organisation is streamlined.
Mr Shatter said some time ago that no further barrack closures are envisaged in this plan.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0717/review-of-defence-forces-expected-to-be-published.html#article

ssshhh123

anyone any more info on this yet?

Morpheus

In all its glory.

2Bn is gone, 5Bn is gone, all elements of both moved to Cathal Brugha Barracks and formed into the 7Bn which is effectively being reactivated!

1 Air Defence regiment, nowhere to be seen!

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/3a0438688862204e80256c5400332598/ef9b9be7707f55b080257a3e0051b506/$FILE/05894326.pdf/Press%20Release%20Reorganisation%20of%20Defence%20Forces.pdf

Donny5

Morphéus wrote: »

1 Air Defence regiment, nowhere to be seen!

Folded into the two arty regiments, maybe?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

4 W Bde is disbanded, 1 S Bde is now "1 Bde", 2 E Bde is now "2 Bde", DFTC to remain with internal amalgamations.

2 Inf Bn & 5 Inf Bn to be amalgamated to make 7th Inf Bn.

B Coy, 5 Inf Bn to be amalgamated to 27 Inf Bn.

2 FAR to move to Athlone.

1 ADR broken up and attached to each FAR.

DFHQ to move to McKee Bks.

FANTAPANTS

So "ARKLONE" to become an artillary barracks

Avgas

I read the DoD press release.....there is no justification of the 2 brigade structure beyond saving money.....first they cut and then the write the strategy paper which will come out in December .......I love it.:rolleyes:

Fine to a point-money is not there...had to happen sooner ..... BUT The BA are going for a reasonably well thought out 2 Division structure...one will be expeditionary and war fighting high tempo intensity...the second will have more light infantry and specialize in COIN, homeland security..contingency......etc...least that is how I understand it.....

It would make sense to steer 1 of the brigades towards inter-operability for peace enforcing/keeping overseas...and leave the 2nd brigade to handle domestic contingencies....the joys of CIT.

Also I interpret this as driving another nail in the RDF coffin...RDF units near a barracks will have to be more integrated...that could be good or bad.....but.....many RDF units will lose their PDF cadre ...am I right in understanding it that way?..Those RDF units not near a barracks will become even more orphaned when in fact developing our reserves and making much more of them is what is needed...UK are talking about doing the same despite regular BA common view that reserves are a joke....

They should not be.

Turbine

Avgas wrote: »

many RDF units will lose their PDF cadre ...am I right in understanding it that way?..

PDF cadre to be reduced but according to the report, there'll still be sufficient staff available for RDF units not co-located with PDF units.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Avgas wrote: »

It would make sense to steer 1 of the brigades towards inter-operability for peace enforcing/keeping overseas...and leave the 2nd brigade to handle domestic contingencies....the joys of CIT.

Are you suggesting that one of the brigades exclusively trains and deploys on overseas missions, and the other just carries out domestic ATCP, routine daily taskings and emergency relief?

If that is the case, I highly disagree with your suggestion. It masks a miriad of problems including operational and career development issues....not that other ranks now have many career development opportunities now!

Avgas wrote: »

Also I interpret this as driving another nail in the RDF coffin...RDF units near a barracks will have to be more integrated...that could be good or bad.....but.....many RDF units will lose their PDF cadre ...am I right in understanding it that way?..Those RDF units not near a barracks will become even more orphaned when in fact developing our reserves and making much more of them is what is needed...UK are talking about doing the same despite regular BA common view that reserves are a joke....

They should not be.

From what I was informed yesterday, many RDF units will be integrated into their closest PDF barracks, this will incur the loss of some cadre staff. However, the RDF posts in the "Boondocks" who do not integrate will retain cadre staff at their locations. They may be reduced in strength though.

Turbine wrote: »

PDF cadre to be reduced but according to the report, there'll still be sufficient staff available for RDF units not co-located with PDF units.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuup!

Avgas

I think that we only have money to equip one brigade to anything that would approach an inter-op standard for EU/NATO......one battalion overseas or on standby for 6 months...one battalion working up...to deploy or standby...one battalion working down from deploy on a cycle of refitting and training and R und R........that sort of thing.

You focus what money you have to get a clear strategic and tactical capacity. Otherwise dilute and waste.

People could move between the brigades.....within reason. Not impossible within either a 6 year stint or the full 20 in.

The idea that CIT and ACP is rubbish is wrong. Domestic contingency needs its own brigade focused on it..taken seriously it would be more than CIT......its about our long term island security ...planning and training for that........not fantasizing about a deployment to Helmand. Its a core mission of the DF. It actually more core than UNIFIL or Tchad or anything else overseas.

Different but equal?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Avgas wrote: »

I think that we only have money to equip one brigade to anything that would approach an inter-op standard for EU/NATO......one battalion overseas or on standby for 6 months...one battalion working up...to deploy or standby...one battalion working down from deploy on a cycle of refitting and training and R und R........that sort of thing.

You focus what money you have to get a clear strategic and tactical capacity. Otherwise dilute and waste.

People could move between the brigades.....within reason. Not impossible within either a 6 year stint or the full 20 in.

The idea that CIT and ACP is rubbish is wrong. Domestic contingency needs its own brigade focused on it..taken seriously it would be more than CIT......its about our long term island security ...planning and training for that........not fantasizing about a deployment to Helmand. Its a core mission of the DF. It actually more core than UNIFIL or Tchad or anything else overseas.

Different but equal?

I see what you are proposing and "on paper" such a sytem could work quite well. Unfortunately it would require a complete overhaul of the DF, a start from scratch scenario which I highly doubt the "gubberment" would sanction.

I believe our future budgets are under the €650 million mark.

Avgas

It is the capital budget you have to look at..most of the 650m is wages, salaries and pensions....I'm willing to be corrected.... but I think the most recent capital spend for DOD was...9 million Euro.....that is ticking over money........best case scenario in three years time you can grow it to 12-20m...big maybes there......will not be much more sustainable beyond that p.a out to 2020 I'd guess.

So the question is with an investment of say 80-100m between the years 2012 and 2020 what capabilities.... equipments can be got for the DF? (and stuff we can afford to maintain...).



Unless all the oil off Salthill gets found.

Morpheus

more helis - possibly attack helis? (dreaming), transport / maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs - deploy air corps over seas.
more ships with larger capacity for long range blue role - create a dedicated marine detachment of at least company size.
enhance FAR's and bring them to full strength and deploy their full assets overseas, i believe that in chad we had dutch 105s protectecting the main base.
more mowags and start developing indigenous bar armour fittings
replace scorpions with up armed version of mowags
encourage domestic development of defence solutions and a fledgling national defence industry and become a country with a rep for being a centre of excellence which other countries could send their equipment to to be upgraded - similiar to how israel does some of its work.

not all of the above, but some ideas to mull over.

Avgas

Morphéus wrote: »

more helis - possibly attack helis? (dreaming),

Cost = not likely. Not many utility choppers will leave you with small change from 10m. Then there is the cost of upkeep, pilots, training. etc. They only thing affordable would be Borat choppers-Mi17s or something, but even they are mega money.

The obvious alternative is have a capacity to deploy the existing Aw139s if it were thought needed for a future PK mission....the big gain would be an 'own' evac asset.........but do we have enough available and would they be rugged enough...do they have a DAS suite....do they mount 12.7mm?

You have to probably spend a few million per airframe to get something that could be deployed and expect to survive.

An alternative?

The 172 Bog Patrollers will need replacing over the next few years-something like that could be deployed overseas at much lower cost than a Heli. Diesel engine if possible. You'd maybe get a limited cargo ability and and some small cargo precision drop. It could do some recce/IED patrols. It could potentially do STOL landings and extract very small numbers of people in some cases....if you had something like a Cessna Carvan or PC12.......it would still need some type of DAS......far from ideal but more at our price point?

Sell or Swap the PC-9Ms for a few PC12 multi-mission combo Bog/Salmon watch with a bit of overseas Tchad capability thrown in?

As usual some good ideas to think about....may post more on your other ideas......thanks.

bluecode

I really can't see the Reims Rockets being replaced. When they were bought many militaries had fixed wing liaision/FAC/utility/observation aircraft in their inventory. But those roles are either obsolete or superseded by helicopters or UAVs even fast jets. In fact the bog patrol would have been better carried out by a UAV.

All talk of Caravans, Airvans etc will not come to pass. They won't be replaced because many of their roles are civilian in nature and more easily done by hiring a local operator.

Even in the good times, replacing them was never going to happen. They'll be run into the ground.

I suspect even the Air Corps if offered the choice of a fleet of fixed wing aircraft or a few more helicopters would make the right choice.

Avgas

Your assumption that fixed wing prop aviation is old hat is plain wrong.

US and other armed forces have invested in small fixed wing-for COIN, special forces support and counter IED. Its actually a growing market-not history.

Unit Cost of Aw139 = $10-21m (varies of spec, on deal, etc.)

Unit Cost of a Cessna Caravan is crica $2m. Add another 1-2 million for military specific equipment, and you have an adequate multipurpose aircraft that can do many things for much less than a helicopter. It does not give you the flexibility of a heli-but its more rugged, much cheaper, simpler and will provide a level of support to overseas missions we currently will not even contemplate. It will also take nice picture of bogs or trawlers, all for much lower operating costs per hour (and per hour of service) than any chopper.

Given the choice between a 1-2 helicopters or 3-6 fixed wing aircraft what would be the wise choice given long term austere budget capacity?

Or the choice could well be (a) a few UAVs are purchased and handled by the army or (b) the Air Corps make a cost/benefit case for some fixed wing asset or nothing.

UAVs are great except the newer and effective ones are getting very expensive. They also cannot (yet) carry people in or out (whereas a STOL fixed wing can just about do that). They are no use for paradropping people or supplies. They lack flexibility and redundancy if the bandwith goes down or is hacked.

A US Predator would have a unit costs of circa $4-5m. But the operating costs are not as cheap as was previously assumed. See: http://securitydebrief.com/2011/02/02/predator-uav-costs-an-analysis-of-alternatives-that-needs-further-analysis/

The U27 is not actually STOL…but if you really want STOL the PC-6 will do runs in 600ft-under 200m.

The Air Corps have a history of buying the wrong aircraft.:rolleyes:

The AW139s were probably bought because that is what CHC and other industry players are using, not because they were a great piece of military gear.