Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interesting articles

191012141554

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    New Ships,Armour and jets! The headline below but not a lot of detail. 46 million for armour i presume for that cash where talking RG32 replacement and not extra mowags

    https://www.thesun.ie/news/9471175/budget-2023-inside-defence-forces-billions-war-chest/



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    The Mowags are coming up towards the start of their replacement project, I can't see any new hulls being ordered. Frankly I'd wait and see, I get the feeling the Sun might have the wrong numbers or adding the existing planned Capital spend in the five year plan and new funding together.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Yeah undoubtedly the Defence estimate will already include previously planned capex



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yeah, its an extra €67 million for Current spending (pay, recruitment) and an extra €35 million for Capital spending (making up the €175 million the Sun was talking about), references to Radar systems in the speech so that almost has to be the next project to start procurement.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    So thats, what, ~6.5% increase in current spending against 8-9% inflation?

    I know that rate of inflation won't fully transpose into the Defence sector, but it is good to note a separate allocation for pay and pensions that will hopefully make a dent in lower pay.

    If we take it that Defence (in the corporate sense) needs to vastly improve its capacity, to improve its capability, then it would be also good to see the organisational changes progressed in 2023 to reflect the serious of commitment by the Govt.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yeah it's about that level of an increase, tiny compared to what we are seeing in virtually every other European nation but sadly likely to be one of the largest one of jumps ever for Irish defence spending. €67 million is low for current increases given the Retention crisis, but maybe the other cost of living adjustments could help more broadly there?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Are they inculding the Kiwi ships as extra vessels?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Doesn’t stop “creative accounting” tricks…



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    The 4 Naval Reserve boats but they are probally taken account in last years budget. Its going to be suprise!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    An order for the MRV crawls out of Procurement hell? I won’t hold my breath.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Any funds for Aircraft, Radar systems and vessels at this stage would probably be depoists as the equipment would probaly have a min of 18 mths lead in time



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Be a fair bit longer in the current supply chain crisis I daresay.

    Planes 2 to 3 years, Ships 3 to 4 years, radar systems, no idea, depends how much of that stuff is OTS. Probably not much.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Maybe the suprise is we are getting the P8 that is currently flying up the West Coast



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    According to the times the Air Corps ate to get several piper training Aircraft What does that mean for the PC9s?

    https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/09/27/defence-spending-military-radar-and-training-aircraft-to-be-acquired/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Multi engine training? How do the AC currently do it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    CASAs, Learjet, overseas with Britain, USA and Australia.

    Its a most curious comment by the Times.

    A) what possible need could we have for any Piper model that isn't already covered by an equivalent in the fleet?

    B) The Air Corps / DF can't just *say* they want a particular model of Aircraft. They have to business case up a requirement for a gap in capability and then put it out to tender. The likes of Pilatus and Dassault would haul them in front of the European Commission in two seconds flat if they tried to go around Procurement rules in such a way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Here is a wild Optimistic reason they want small trainning aircraft. They are going to dump the Pc9s and use a small aircraft from basic flight training because we are going to get fast jets in the medium term and all trainning will be carried out in the country we buy them from



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    It is a bit odd that all training is done on the PC9, most other air arms have a Grob or Piper in the mix, before moving on to a PC9 equivalent and then ultimately a LIFT.

    This could be a way to extend the lives of the PC9 (would make sense to DoD) - certain amount of early hours done on a basic trainer, the remainder done on the PC9 and then there's your wings.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    It seems pretty illogical to me as well. Surely it would make more sense to acquire a similar number of basic jet aircraft such as the L39 NG ? Why a mixed fleet of prop driven basic trainers? Does the article indicate the number of airframes being acquired?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Here we go:

    Defence spending is to increase by 5.6 per cent over the coming year, a modest start to the Government’s plan to increase spending by 50 per cent by 2028.

    The defence budget will be €1.17 billion in 2023, an extra €67 million on the last budget.

    According to the Department of Defence, this will provide a financial platform to “initiate the required transformation” of the defence sector. The increase will insist in bringing Irish defence capabilities “closer to European norms, while also ensuring the ongoing Defence Forces’ capacity to deliver on all roles assigned by Government, both at home and overseas”.

    Much of the extra funding will go towards an 35 per cent increase in the Defence Forces capital budget, bringing it to a record €176 million. This will fund some of the recommendations of the Commission on Defence Forces which reported in February that Ireland’s military is largely incapable of defending the country from outside attack.

    Much of this will go towards defence initiatives that have already been announced. These include the purchase of two inshore patrol vessels from New Zealand and two maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Air Corps’ ageing Casa aircraft.

    One new project, which was recommended by the commission, is the purchase of a primary radar system to detect airborne threats. It is understood about €15 million has been earmarked in the capital budget to begin exploratory research into the procurement of this system. The total cost of the radar system is expected to be well over €100 million over the course of the project.

    Ireland is the only EU country not covered by a primary radar system, meaning aircraft are invisible if they do not have their navigation beacons turned on. Russian bombers have taken advantage of this in recent years by skirting western Irish airspace to test the reaction time of RAF jets.

    There will also be extra funding for the creation of several new posts within the Defence Forces which were recommended by the commission, including a new head of transformation and a head of strategic human resources.

    The Army is to get additional funding for the purchase of new types of armoured vehicles and the Air Corps will receiving funding for several small Piper training aircraft. There will also be funding for 13 building projects, including barrack refurbishments and the construction of gyms in military bases around the country.

    An allocation of €542 million will go towards pay and allowances. This will include funding for the recruitment of 400 additional Defence Forces recruits. However, given the difficulty the military has faced in recruiting troops in recent years it is not clear whether this target can be met.

    It is understood the increases in capital expenditure involved difficult conversations between the Department of Defence and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Officials said the increases were in line with those sought by the Defence Forces’ senior leadership and the intention is to increase defence spending by greater amounts over the coming years.

    The funding increase received a lukewarm reception from the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (Raco) which represents Defence Forces officers.

    “Coming from such a low base any budgetary increase, no matter how small, is welcome,” said General Secretary Commandant Conor King. “However, the Defence Forces will never be an employer of choice unless it introduces urgent retention initiatives such as agreed implementation of the working time directive with necessary health and safety protections, and suitable pension provisions to cater for forced early retirement.”

    Independent TD Cathal Berry, a former Army Ranger Wing commander, said the budget was lacking in ambition. “Ireland was defenceless yesterday and is defenceless today.” He said there is no hope of recruiting an additional 400 troops while existing numbers were still in “free fall”.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I see in coverage of the Justice budget, AGS have included a new surveillance plane in Capital spend.

    The budgeted amount is €7m, which would be a lot for a new Defender.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Will they go with a PC12 for common reasons so it will be less training for the air corps witha bigger pool to pull crew from or could we see GASU going private like IRCG



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭thomil


    The PC-9 wasn‘t designed as a basic trainer. It was designed as an intermediate aircraft to introduce trainee pilots to basic tactics and weapons use, as well as getting them used to the higher speed and complexity that would characterise the jet trainers and fighter aircraft that would come later. The basic pipeline would be: Basic Trainer (Cessna 172, Single engine Piper, etc) -> PC-9 -> Jet Trainer (BAE Hawk, Alpha Jet, Aermacchi 339, etc) - Front line fighter, likely via some sort of operational conversion process using double-seater versions of the front line fighter in use.

    This paradigm has shifted somewhat recently, with the introduction of a new generation of advanced trainers such as the PC-21 or Embraer 314 Super Tucano that can to a certain degree combine the roles of the advanced and jet trainer into one aircraft. The fact that the Air Corps is now looking into purchasing what appears to be a dedicated basic training aircraft would suggest to me that they‘re laying the groundwork for a more differentiated training pipeline, possibly to facilitate the introduction of some sort of combat aircraft later down the line.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,979 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Not surprising sadly given what Stryker can pay.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The entire process of recruitment and contractual service is going to have to change.

    I'm not saying it shouldn't be much better remunerated at the same time, but really it should be five year stints for everyone, no buts no whys. Then it should be 2 year renewables.

    The DF absolutely must have some certainty as to its manpower. If that cannot be achieved voluntarily, we are seriously in the realms of national service and long-term active reserve.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,687 ✭✭✭Signore Fancy Pants


    For me it was 5, 4, then 12, then every 2 years.

    Pay, conditions and job satisfaction are the core issues. Don't fix that, then everything else is pointless.

    Having a system of a 5 year initial contract then 2 year renewable gives much less certainty to troops, and entirely unworkable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,328 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I'm referring to those as mandatory minimums, no out before those terms expire.

    When I did my postgrad in the public sector years ago, I owed them one year of service after, for every year they paid for. In my opinion that should be the condition of every profession and trade paid for by the State, with a mandate to complete the qualification.

    What would you do to retain a class to get a return on the massive investment of training them?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    No more work placements outside the naval base!



Advertisement