Apaches over the Curragh

Jawgap

After all this I'd say any kit passed on from the Brits will be boring but important - for example, catering / cooking gear, office equipment, maybe some engineering vehicles - I don't expect there'll be many Mastiffs and Ridgebacks charging around the place!

It might be easier to get spares for stuff too.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

After all this I'd say any kit passed on from the Brits will be boring but important - for example, catering / cooking gear, office equipment, maybe some engineering vehicles - I don't expect there'll be many Mastiffs and Ridgebacks charging around the place!

It might be easier to get spares for stuff too.

Hey, anything that helps the budget is fine for me but the UK is going to have spare hardware going, the post Afghanistan draw down along with the likely reductions that will happen post this general election

sparky42

Ah, I see we have the first letter in the Times from a Crusty, outraged about the 8 in Mali working with the RIR:rolleyes: Apparently it's a sign of rejoining the Commonwealth, and/or having the Army serving under British Control:rolleyes:

I expect there will be plenty more nonsense from the likes of them up until and post the signing of the agreement. Wonder when that will actually happen, I want to actually read all the text to see what has actually been agreed.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

Ah, I see we have the first letter in the Times from a Crusty, outraged about the 8 in Mali working with the RIR:rolleyes: Apparently it's a sign of rejoining the Commonwealth, and/or having the Army serving under British Control:rolleyes:

I expect there will be plenty more nonsense from the likes of them up until and post the signing of the agreement. Wonder when that will actually happen, I want to actually read all the text to see what has actually been agreed.

Difficult to take a letter signed by a Tommy Cooper seriously

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Difficult to take a letter signed by a Tommy Cooper seriously

Oh god I'd never take that seriously, but if we end up sending a ship or Casa to join the EU anti piracy task force I can just imagine the screaming fit
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/simon-coveney-to-decide-on-defence-forces-role-in-tackling-piracy-in-indian-ocean-1.2066264

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

Oh god I'd never take that seriously, but if we end up sending a ship or Casa to join the EU anti piracy task force I can just imagine the screaming fit
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/simon-coveney-to-decide-on-defence-forces-role-in-tackling-piracy-in-indian-ocean-1.2066264

........or if joint patrolling goes ahead and you get Irish personnel serving on RN ships, even if they are just patrol vessels.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

........or if joint patrolling goes ahead and you get Irish personnel serving on RN ships, even if they are just patrol vessels.

Well clearly that would mean the return of the Act of Union, or some such nonsense (though how some of NI would take joint ops will be interesting). The Rivers have already done some joint exercises so hopefully we will see more, might be interesting if Irish personnel ended up on the drug patrol in the Caribbean now that a River has taken over that deployment. They'd end up servicing with US Coastguard as well then.

randy hickey

Newstalk reporting on their news bulletin that MoD Coveney has signed the defence co-operation agreement with the UK in Dublin Castle this morning.

Larbre34

None of this should be a surprise, FG were anti-neutrality in opposition and pro NATO at other times. Bi-lateral defence co-operation with our nearest neighbours is perfectly understandable, particularly as they provide us with air defence.

As regards EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta, Ive always thought it would be the perfect platform to improve INS capability, a blue helmet mission for the high seas. Delighted to hear we might send a ship or two in rotation, the Róisín or Beckett class would do the job fine and are equal in size to many european ships previously involved. Operating in a fleet and with armed aggressors (although they have declined greatly) is not something the NS has much experience of and would be of great value.

I'd be surprised if we sent a CASA, it would leave very thin cover and would require a permanent base with support. At least a ship would operate much as it does off Ireland, only requiring replenishment.

sparky42

randy hickey wrote: »

Newstalk reporting on their news bulletin that MoD Coveney has signed the defence co-operation agreement with the UK in Dublin Castle this morning.

The first defence agreement between Ireland and the UK since 1938 and the Treaty Ports. Didn't think it would happen so quickly, hope they publish the text of it...

randy hickey

DoD press release here:

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Release+ID/F1F9E856B2E0FE5680257DD2003A10BD?OpenDocument


Not much detail given.

sparky42

I wonder what they mean by "Joint Procurement", to me anyway that sounds different than "raiding the surplus equipment"?

ectoraige

sparky42 wrote: »

I wonder what they mean by "Joint Procurement", to me anyway that sounds different than "raiding the surplus equipment"?

I imagine it's something along the lines of "Chaps, we're ordering 20,000 of X, shall we throw in a few extra for you and we'll give you the same price we're getting?"

sparky42

ectoraige wrote: »

I imagine it's something along the lines of "Chaps, we're ordering 20,000 of X, shall we throw in a few extra for you and we'll give you the same price we're getting?"

Indeed, but I wonder what? FRES:p, Type 26:p. Taking the piss there, just wondering what might fall under that list

ectoraige

sparky42 wrote: »

Indeed, but I wonder what? FRES:p, Type 26:p. Taking the piss there, just wondering what might fall under that list

Maybe a few bailers :pac:

gallag

Mabey ming will finally get his carrier?

IRLConor

sparky42 wrote: »

Taking the piss there, just wondering what might fall under that list

Probably stuff like rations. Stuff that's high-volume and low individual value and hence easier to combine orders to negotiate discounts.

Larbre34

Royal Navy gets 20 F-35s, we get 1, that sort of thing.

bluecorp

The key phrase in the Times article is this:' Co-operation between the two defence forces up to now has been on an ad-hoc basis but the memorandum will put it on a formal footing and will provide for greater co-operation in the future.'

Similarly in the DoD press release: 'The Minister stated that “the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding places existing cooperation arrangements in the Defence area between Ireland and the UK on a more formal and enduring footing”. '

That's basically it really. There's always been informal cooperation between both countries. This new agreement just put some structure on the process. Long overdue and of mutual benefit to both countries in light of the current security situation.

I doubt though we'll see a British army regiment carrying out manoeuvres on the Curragh again!

Jawgap: 'Using the 'Mad Mitch' approach to peacekeeping and the enforcement of Argyll Law along with a few Keenie Meenie ops '

LOL, I doubt if many will get the reference without googling. I think anyway they tried it later in NI and it didn't work out for them there. It certainly wouldn't work anywhere these days.

cruasder777

bluecorp wrote: »

The key phrase in the Times article is this:' Co-operation between the two defence forces up to now has been on an ad-hoc basis but the memorandum will put it on a formal footing and will provide for greater co-operation in the future.'

Similarly in the DoD press release: 'The Minister stated that “the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding places existing cooperation arrangements in the Defence area between Ireland and the UK on a more formal and enduring footing”. '

That's basically it really. There's always been informal cooperation between both countries. This new agreement just put some structure on the process. Long overdue and of mutual benefit to both countries in light of the current security situation.

I doubt though we'll see a British army regiment carrying out manoeuvres on the Curragh again!

Jawgap: 'Using the 'Mad Mitch' approach to peacekeeping and the enforcement of Argyll Law along with a few Keenie Meenie ops '

LOL, I doubt if many will get the reference without googling. I think anyway they tried it later in NI and it didn't work out for them there. It certainly wouldn't work anywhere these days.

NI was a success, all out civil war averted, only 3000 dead over 30 years and the terrorists disarmed, obviously alongside a political strategy.

Peace Enforcement and Peace keeping are different things.

Could be said in Rwanda, Bosnia and other places etc, Peace keeping was a disaster. Peace Enforcement would have been a better strategy.

gallag

cruasder777 wrote: »

NI was a success, all out civil war averted, only 3000 dead over 30 years and the terrorists disarmed, obviously alongside a political strategy.

Peace Enforcement and Peace keeping are different things.

Could be said in Rwanda, Bosnia and other places etc, Peace keeping was a disaster. Peace Enforcement would have been a better strategy.

That's something that always amazed me, the British Security Forces killed about 10 people per year of the troubles, sure there were complete disasters like bloody Sunday and some would say collusion would bump that number up a bit but you could imagine how many the yanks, Russians or Chinese etc would have killed had they been face with the same situation! always amazes me to here republican RA heads talk about the bloody murderous Brits when the IRA killed five times the amount of the RUC, UDR, BA, SAS etc put together!

Jawgap

bluecorp wrote: »

......

Jawgap: 'Using the 'Mad Mitch' approach to peacekeeping and the enforcement of Argyll Law along with a few Keenie Meenie ops '

.....

Indeed.

Some people don't seem to understand that the British peacekeeping / peace enforcement / counter insurgency efforts were conducted in the context of the 'retreat from Empire' - and that for the longest time the British were happy to conduct such operations without a UN mandate - even after Suez.

One opportunity that might open up (officially, if it hasn't unofficially) is access to various training areas the British are plugged into around the world, and the opportunities for 'adventurous training.'

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

That's something that always amazed me, the British Security Forces killed about 10 people per year of the troubles, sure there were complete disasters like bloody Sunday and some would say collusion would bump that number up a bit but you could imagine how many the yanks, Russians or Chinese etc would have killed had they been face with the same situation! always amazes me to here republican RA heads talk about the bloody murderous Brits when the IRA killed five times the amount of the RUC, UDR, BA, SAS etc put together!

Ah but they have to talk up their "achievements" against the mighty Brits, allows them to avoid having to talk about how many innocent civilians Catholic and Protestant they murdered. Funny how when they murdered it was in a war, but when the BA killed them it was murder:rolleyes:

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

One opportunity that might open up (officially, if it hasn't unofficially) is access to various training areas the British are plugged into around the world, and the opportunities for 'adventurous training.'

Good point, Belize, Kenya for example, environments that the Army would never get to.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

Good point, Belize, Kenya for example, environments that the Army would never get to.

Well, I was thinking more about the ski centres :D

I'd like to volunteer if someone is needed to go on a recce!

I think the Rangers have been in Belize, but as you say there's Kenya as well as Canada, Brunei (?) and few other spots.

OzCam

Rations, no.

The PDF rations are already the same as the BA ORP. Made in the same factory, by the same people, with the same ingredients. The only difference is that Ireland's come in a plastic bag instead of a cardboard box, and with a washing-up scourer and a condiment container instead of, umm... the little bottle of Tabasco IIRC.

Ammo might be a different story. Not sure if the Brits have much left after Helmand though. At one point they were going through a million rounds in a couple of months. Now if they wanted to throw a couple of Javelins this way, there's a couple of lads in the Curragh might like to wake up the neighbours. At 60 grand a pop

IRLConor

OzCam wrote: »

The PDF rations are already the same as the BA ORP. Made in the same factory, by the same people, with the same ingredients.

That's why I mentioned rations. Joint procurement could mean getting the same stuff at a better price.

bluecorp

Jawgap wrote: »

Indeed.

Some people don't seem to understand that the British peacekeeping / peace enforcement / counter insurgency efforts were conducted in the context of the 'retreat from Empire' - and that for the longest time the British were happy to conduct such operations without a UN mandate - even after Suez.

One opportunity that might open up (officially, if it hasn't unofficially) is access to various training areas the British are plugged into around the world, and the opportunities for 'adventurous training.'

This is what leapt out of to me, opportunities for 'adventurous training'. I suspect there were was more co-operation between the SAS and ARW than was ever officially acknowledged. In fact I seem to remember a bit of a press release extolling the experience of the ARW and how they co-operated with the CIGN the Germans and the US Rangers but with no mention of the SAS. If I was a gullible person I might believe the Irish army had no dealings with the SAS but I'm not. Sure we would ignore our nearest neighbour even though we had a common enemy. Very plausible.

At least now, it might be acknowledged. But that's not the point. It's not the just the special forces who get useful experience. But all the defence forces.

Plus I will say the Brits can learn a thing or two from the Irish military.

In any case we have more in common than separates us. Truth be told that the Irish army would fit into the British army without much cultural complication and we might just might improve them!

cruasder777

bluecorp wrote: »

This is what leapt out of to me, opportunities for 'adventurous training'. I suspect there were was more co-operation between the SAS and ARW than was ever officially acknowledged. In fact I seem to remember a bit of a press release extolling the experience of the ARW and how they co-operated with the CIGN the Germans and the US Rangers but with no mention of the SAS. If I was a gullible person I might believe the Irish army had no dealings with the SAS but I'm not. Sure we would ignore our nearest neighbour and our common enemy. Very plausible.

At least now, it might be acknowledged. But that's not the point. It's not the just the special forces who get useful experience. But all the defence forces.

Plus I will say the Brits can learn a thing or two from the Irish military.

In any case we have more in common than separates us. Truth be told that the Irish army would fit into the British army without much cultural complication and we would improve them!

In terms of Peace keeping and conflict resolution I agree. After 15 years in Afghanistan peace keeping has been on the backburner a long time.

But I don't want to see the British army doing lots more peacekeeping, as its such a militarily compromised role.

In terms of cross training in close quarters battle training, as an example, remember the BA trains with armies from around the globe. Swopping skillsets developed in combat, so I don't see how the Irish army can have a better skillset to teach, if it has not tested that skill set in combat ?

Here's an example of Royal Marines realising the US marines method of approaching a building was better, only because its been proven in combat.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc5XJUXMqRA

riffmongous

gallag wrote: »

That's something that always amazed me, the British Security Forces killed about 10 people per year of the troubles, sure there were complete disasters like bloody Sunday and some would say collusion would bump that number up a bit but you could imagine how many the yanks, Russians or Chinese etc would have killed had they been face with the same situation! always amazes me to here republican RA heads talk about the bloody murderous Brits when the IRA killed five times the amount of the RUC, UDR, BA, SAS etc put together!

That's a tad simplistic, how much did the army's actions and tactics contribute to prolongingthe conflict past its initial stage and all the deaths that came after on all sides?

skooterblue2

gallag wrote: »

always amazes me to here republican RA heads talk about the bloody murderous Brits when the IRA killed five times the amount of the RUC, UDR, BA, SAS etc put together!

Ahh the British Army were always prejudiced against the Irish. Where as the IRA killed all walks of life and demoninations. Irish,English, catholic Prodestant, young people old people, single, married and WIDOWS. Never accuse the IRA of showing favouritism.

OzCam

Again, Rations: no.

Cardboard is more recyclable, but the ration is in a plastic bag because its easier to pack and you can put the rubbish in the bag when you're done. There's no point in saving 5c on a ration if you then end up with 10,000 cardboard boxes with MOD USE ONLY on them which you have to strip and get rid of.

Savings in economy of scale only work if what you're buying is the same spec as the rest of the order. There's a reason a Mastiff costs so much more than a Cougar.

There's no point in replacing something you've already paid for unless its either crap or at the end of its useful life. And there's no point in taking someone else's surplus unless you get it dirt cheap, it hasn't been beaten to death, you can refurbish it quickly, and put it into service for considerably less than buying new would cost.

So, for example, there's not much point in replacing the Lets Take Another Vehicle-s with Foxhound or Panthers. It's too late, and we should have bought Eagles anyway. There might be a point to replacing the Barbie jeeps with Wolfs or Tithonus rebuilds.


I'm not in the DF, so these are educated guesses. Maybe someone with more useful information might join in.

Bear in mind that the DF overseas missions in future are likely to be either in Africa or the Middle East, along with everyone else.

So lets have a look at what the army could use, starting with the urgent, practical and cheap:

1. Eyepro (Revision Sawfly) for everyone. And make them wear it.
2. Body armour, for everyone who needs it.
3. Jump in to the Brits' clever new boots contract: Boots Patrol, CHL and Desert are likely to be much cheaper than the Mendls or whatever we're issuing in small numbers. And it's time we switched to brown anyway; keep the black boots for parade if you have to.
4. PTSD care for all who need it. Anyone who doesn't understand that a mental injury is as serious as a physical injury is condemning someone and their family to decades of misery.
5. Give the lower ranks a raise, and drop the emergency accommodation charge. We can't have people sleeping in cars, it's a disgrace.
6. Revise the desert uniform: darken one of the masks a bit to give more contrast and breakup, change the fabric to 50/50 poly cotton and make enough to issue them to everyone going to the sun not just Kabul. And a UBACS for hot weather.
7. A lighter weight version of the green uniform wouldn't go amiss either, though I think setting yourself apart from those you're working with (the French in Chad, for example) is losing its utility. To the likes of ISIL we're all targets, regardless of what colour we're wearing and IEDs dont care anyway. So you might as well be comfortable.
8. Drop the ACOGs if the contract hasn't been signed yet and jump in on the ELCAN Spectre, it's good enough. With the money saved, get enough for 80% of the AUG fleet.
9. NVD and IR pointers for everyone deployed, it's not just a daylight job any more.
10. More training. Much more, and in places like BATUS and Zagan LFTA, not just Copehill and Sunny Senny.

If you manage to make some significant savings there are some bigger things you'd like to do in the longer term.

• After the third Beckett-class OPV is bought, the next replacement ship or two should be EPVs. With helipads. What idiot came up with the idea of naming ships after blokes anyway?
• Our own long range logistics support, instead of depending on others. How often has that got Irish troops into trouble?
• Up armoured trucks, Wolfhound maybe?
• Ridgeback &/or Jackal and some R-WMIKs for places like Chad. Mastiff is a fine vehicle, but it's fecking HUGE.

And none of the above will be worth a damn unless the DF is allowed to hang on to any savings they make. If Michael Noonan's bean counters grab the money back it's all a waste of time.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

NI was a success, all out civil war averted, only 3000 dead over 30 years and the terrorists disarmed, obviously alongside a political strategy.

Peace Enforcement and Peace keeping are different things.

Could be said in Rwanda, Bosnia and other places etc, Peace keeping was a disaster. Peace Enforcement would have been a better strategy.

More than 3,500 dead over 25 years only to end up sharing power with the very people who the British/unionists used to say they wouldn't never even speak to etc. And let's not forget the monetary costs eh lads, spending Billions for 25 years just to end up sharing power with SF/IRA

cruasder777

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

More than 3,500 dead over 25 years only to end up sharing power with the very people who the British/unionists used to say they wouldn't never even speak to etc. And let's not forget the monetary costs eh lads, spending Billions for 25 years just to end up sharing power with SF/IRA

Never speak to while engaged in terrorism and armed, get your facts right.

The reason SF went the democratic route was because armed struggle was spent.

ChicagoJoe

gallag wrote: »

That's something that always amazed me, the British Security Forces murdered about 10 people per year of the troubles, sure there were complete disasters like bloody Sunday and some would say collusion would bump that number up a bit but you could imagine how many the yanks, Russians or Chinese etc would have killed had they been face with the same situation! always amazes me to here republican RA heads talk about the bloody murderous Brits when the IRA killed five times the amount of the RUC, UDR, BA, SAS etc put together!

Those murdered by the British forces during the troubles were almost exclusively unarmed Catholic civilians while the IRA did indeed kill 5 times as many of whom most armed were combatants in the Brits, RUC, UDR, B Specials etc. It was the IRA's claim that they would kill 4 or 5 Brits in retaliation for the death of a nationalist, a threat they obviously lived up to

If I were British I wouldn't be mentioning the Yanks, Russians or Chinese and what they might do in a situation as clearly the Brits preferred to try to throw their weight around in the six counties and paid the price for it while running away from the Yanks and Grenada, Chinese and Hong Kong etc

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

Never speak to while engaged in terrorism and armed, get your facts right.

The reason SF went the democratic route was because armed struggle was spent.

All sides were coming to that conclusion

gallag

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Those murdered by the British forces during the troubles were almost exclusively unarmed Catholic civilians while the IRA did indeed kill 5 times as many of whom most armed were combatants in the Brits, RUC, UDR, B Specials etc. It was the IRA's claim that they would kill 4 or 5 Brits in retaliation for the death of a nationalist, a threat they obviously lived up to

If I were British I wouldn't be mentioning the Yanks, Russians or Chinese and what they might do in a situation as clearly the Brits preferred to try to throw their weight around in the six counties and paid the price for it while running away from the Yanks and Grenada, Chinese and Hong Kong etc

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Organisation_Responsible.html

tell me this joe, who killed the most innocent catholics, all the British Security services put together or the IRA? Protecting the people? don't make me laugh, think of the thousands of IRA attacks and bombs the security services foiled! saved thousands of lives of all sections of the community.

How many time have people explained to you that Hong Kong was on a 100 year lease? typically you will see the British wrong in any case? should they have caused a war to keep foreign land or respected the deal?

you sir are blinded by your hate.

Morpheus

[mod]
Lads. this is not the place for political argument of this ilk. please discuss the military ramifications of this historic agreement or else bugger off to the political board. A ban has already been issued to one member.
thanks for tuning in
[/mod]

ChicagoJoe

Horse84 wrote: »

I'm not sure if the Irish public feel appeased by being gifted surplus British military kit. I'm waiting for the indignant outcry from the crusties and the shinners.

Maybe the shinners and crusties might have a point as shouldn't the Irish Defense forces be receiving new, up to date hardware than our shambles of a Govt taking clapped out hardware from a clapped out military ?

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Maybe the shinners and crusties might have a point as shouldn't the Irish Defense forces be receiving new, up to date hardware than our shambles of a Govt taking clapped out hardware from a clapped out military ?

It's more like a 'try-before-you-buy' scheme - we get their battle tested, if slightly secondhand gear and benefit from the various customisations and mods they've applied- if we like it and it suits us we go back and buy the new stuff.

Saves the DF being the beta-testers and working out the kinks for the manufacturers.

ChicagoJoe

Larbre34 wrote: »

More likely the DF lads will travel to Britain to make use of the extensive field training facilities.

However I understand the surplus equipment includes 2 x Type 23 Frigates and a squadron of Tornado GR4A's with the latest avionics pack...;)

Or it could just be boxes of 7.62...

I certainly wouldn't be getting excited about the RAF by any means, they can barely afford to feed their personnel with cheese sandwiches for God's sake . Seen a program on Newsnight where they ran a story on major moral and staffing issues at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Things have gotten quite bad there with crews forced to eat some of the humanitarian rations that was meant for Iraqis as all they were being given were cheese sandwiches. Cuts have also meant only 16, out of the 102 Tornado's the Brits were in use, allegedly to bolstering the Bahrain emir's F16 and F5's with decrepit Tornado jets. The fighter equivalent of a 1990 Vauxhall Cavalier.

"Contracts at the base provide only for hot meals during the day, with snacks laid on at night. The air vice marshal, on hearing the complaints, went to a pallet of rations intended for air dropping to refugees in northern Iraq. He was "so disgusted by the 'cheese sandwiches' offered as meals to the night shift, he went and broke into a pallet of aid and handed it out as it was better than what we were feeding our airmen", said the serviceman's letter......... Half of these top specification jets are now in Akrotiri, but Newsnight has learned that due to their age and long use, the battle to keep them airworthy requires long hours of work by ground crews, particularly on the engines. On many days, just two or three of the Tornadoes are available for missions over Iraq."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30338659

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't be getting excited about the RAF by any means, they can barely afford to feed their personnel with cheese sandwiches for God's sake . Seen a program on Newsnight where they ran a story on major moral and staffing issues at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Things have gotten quite bad there with crews forced to eat some of the humanitarian rations that was meant for Iraqis as all they were being given were cheese sandwiches. Cuts have also meant only 16, out of the 102 Tornado's the Brits were in use, allegedly to bolstering the Bahrain emir's F16 and F5's with decrepit Tornado jets. The fighter equivalent of a 1990 Vauxhall Cavalier.

"Contracts at the base provide only for hot meals during the day, with snacks laid on at night. The air vice marshal, on hearing the complaints, went to a pallet of rations intended for air dropping to refugees in northern Iraq. He was "so disgusted by the 'cheese sandwiches' offered as meals to the night shift, he went and broke into a pallet of aid and handed it out as it was better than what we were feeding our airmen", said the serviceman's letter......... Half of these top specification jets are now in Akrotiri, but Newsnight has learned that due to their age and long use, the battle to keep them airworthy requires long hours of work by ground crews, particularly on the engines. On many days, just two or three of the Tornadoes are available for missions over Iraq."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30338659

.......and despite all that they are only one of two air forces in the world with a credible expeditionary capability......

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

It's more like a 'try-before-you-buy' scheme - we get their battle tested, if slightly secondhand gear and benefit from the various customisations and mods they've applied- if we like it and it suits us we go back and buy the new stuff.

Saves the DF being the beta-testers and working out the kinks for the manufacturers.

Well in fairness to the DF, I have yet to see them been first in the cue for new hardware, we leave it to those who develop it in the first place to prove it's worth. From guys I have talked to the Irish DF's personal equipment is much better than the Brits, the Styr v SA80 been a good example. Little to be learned from this so that cannot be learned with the Nordic Battle Group, it's just a symbolic little agreement for Charlie Flanagan to try and make a deal out of.

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Well in fairness to the DF, I have yet to see them been first in the cue for new hardware, we leave it to those who develop it in the first place to prove it's worth. From guys I have talked to the Irish DF's personal equipment is much better than the Brits, the Styr v SA80 been a good example. Little to be learned from this so that cannot be learned with the Nordic Battle Group, it's just a symbolic little agreement for Charlie Flanagan to try and make a deal out of.

Well then, there shouldn't be too much in it to bother the Shinners and the crusties - even better, if we can earn a few shillings from it by getting the Brits to pay for some training all the better, especially the way the Euro is against Sterling.

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

.......and despite all that they are only one of two air forces in the world with a credible expeditionary capability......

Is that the same 'credible expeditionary capability' almost over run in Iraq and A'stan with the good old USA having to come to the rescue yet again


"A devastating report into the Afghanistan war has concluded that the British task force sent into Helmand was ill-equipped, under-resourced and too weak to defeat the Taliban. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8642525/Armed-Forces-too-weak-to-defeat-the-Taliban.html

Horse84

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Maybe the shinners and crusties might have a point as shouldn't the Irish Defense forces be receiving new, up to date hardware than our shambles of a Govt taking clapped out hardware from a clapped out military ?

Lol do u seriously think the shinners give a damn about the quality of kit the defence forces get? They'd disband the lot it was left to them

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Is that the same 'credible expeditionary capability' almost over run in Iraq and A'stan with the good old USA having to come to the rescue yet again


"A devastating report into the Afghanistan war has concluded that the British task force sent into Helmand was ill-equipped, under-resourced and too weak to defeat the Taliban. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8642525/Armed-Forces-too-weak-to-defeat-the-Taliban.html

Well I never......fancy that.......soldiers complaining - now there's something you don't see every day.

......and senior commanders playing at politics - I wonder if that's the first recorded instance of that happening.

.....and you know in all my years of studying various archival sources I've yet to come across a communication between a commander and a superior HQ where the subordinate says something like "all grand here. We have everything we need, and all our kit is brilliant" - or "no need to bother with those extra troops / equipment / air support / resources you were going to send us. We have enough." - three words no commander said, ever, in the history of warfare :rolleyes:

Horse84

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

I would have thought given their history, no one more than the SFers would be pro military ?? That is pro independent Irish military and not some ramshackle force supplied with 2nd hand equipment from a clapped out army

If u think Sinn Fein are pro defence forces and by that I mean the legal and only oglaigh na hEireann then I would strongly suggest u do some reading. This is off topic anyway, apologies.

ChicagoJoe

Horse84 wrote: »

If u think Sinn Fein are pro defence forces and by that I mean the legal and only oglaigh na hEireann then I would strongly suggest u do some reading. This is off topic anyway, apologies.

Well whatever you think. But this shinner believes that the Irish DF's deserve better than Flanagan and that gobshyte Shatta' before.

cruasder777

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Well in fairness to the DF, I have yet to see them been first in the cue for new hardware, we leave it to those who develop it in the first place to prove it's worth. From guys I have talked to the Irish DF's personal equipment is much better than the Brits, the Styr v SA80 been a good example. Little to be learned from this so that cannot be learned with the Nordic Battle Group, it's just a symbolic little agreement for Charlie Flanagan to try and make a deal out of.

A British soldier in 2004 is unrecognisable from his 2015 counterpart, you really don't have a clue what you are on about.

The SA80 A2 is a totally re-designed weapon, the worlds most expensive assault rife, with Picatinny Quad-rails and even a laser light module.

In terms of personal issue kit, head cams, where soldiers are in direct communication with section commanders and HQ is now standard. Sections have Black Hornet, nano-drones which rely images directly back.


GPS, helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held computers etc.

If anything the British army personal kit is light years ahead of practically everyone. Afghanistan has helped develop it rapidly.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/