Interesting articles

irishrgr wrote: »

I find it an interesting insight into the culture of the Irish military that missions are in doubt due to a lack of volunteers and there is pushback at people being ordered to go. Isn't being told what to do an essential part of the military? Fascinating.

irishrgr wrote: »

Good responses all right, and I'll agree, a short paper article rarely can get the nuance. And like Moran above, I too ended up on one of those extensions, being the fortunate company commander who got to tell the team "I know we're mostly packed and ready to go, but, we're unpacking and we're staying, we've been extended". Less than four weeks to go.....the troops were not impressed. I get it.

And I've done the back to back tours, I think it's something like for the 20 years we've ben married, between one thing and another with the Army, Mrs Irishrgr and I have been apart a cumulative total of something like 8 years. It sucks, and I'm a reservist too!!! Many of my active duty friends were deploying every none months for a year for nearly five years, it's exhausting and we lost a lot of talented leaders who just left post contract, just worn out.
And our specialty units are in the same boat (SF, EOD, Tech, Pilots) are worn out too, its never ending for them.

I'll grant ya, the US is NOT Ireland with the level of global commitments, and that is a fair point.

My fear is the various representative organizations (to me at least) are coming across as "whiny" about pay/European working time thing/not being allowed to unionize and less about the larger policy issues. This allows the govt of the day to had out some pay raises/allowances and say "see, we gave yous something, even had a commission", say "we support the troops" and ignore the larger strategic/policy issues which will continue to linger. (like the CoS not reporting to the Minister or controlling the budget).

Don't get me wrong, the pay scales are atrocious, more so given the hatchet the DF took in the recession and must be addressed. I just hope the troops arn't fobbed off with some short term gains and miss the opportunity to tackle larger issues. I don't agree that a deployment is a promotion requirement, but if I'm looking at candidates one one has real operational experience, and the other hasn't, it makes a simple choice all things being equal.

As said above, it's fairer to start at the bottom of the list and send those guys/gals, but if its a list which keeps getting shorter, then its part of the larger resource & policy problem.

Extract below from the State of the European Union address given by President Von der Leyen to the Parliament today.

Its quite clear that Defence policy is going to be a live issue in this Country for the foreseeable future, driven by both internal and external factors.

"Witnessing events unfold in Afghanistan was profoundly painful for all the families of fallen servicemen and servicewomen.

We bow to the sacrifice of those soldiers, diplomats and aid workers who laid down their lives.

To make sure that their service will never be in vain, we have to reflect on how this mission could end so abruptly.

There are deeply troubling questions that allies will have to tackle within NATO.

But there is simply no security and defence issue where less cooperation is the answer. We need to invest in our joint partnership and to draw on each side's unique strength.

This is why we are working with Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on a new EU-NATO Joint Declaration to be presented before the end of the year.

But this is only one part of the equation.

Europe can – and clearly should – be able and willing to do more on its own. But if we are to do more, we first need to explain why. I see three broad categories.

First, we need to provide stability in our neighbourhood and across different regions.

We are connected to the world by narrow straits, stormy seas and vast land borders. Because of that geography, Europe knows better than anyone that if you don't deal in time with the crisis abroad, the crisis comes to you.

Secondly, the nature of the threats we face is evolving rapidly: from hybrid or cyber-attacks to the growing arms race in space.

Disruptive technology has been a great equaliser in the way power can be used today by rogue states or non-state groups. 

You no longer need armies and missiles to cause mass damage. You can paralyse industrial plants, city administrations and hospitals – all you need is your laptop. You can disrupt entire elections with a smartphone and an internet connection.

The third reason is that the European Union is a unique security provider. There will be missions where NATO or the UN will not be present, but where the EU should be.

On the ground, our soldiers work side-by-side with police officers, lawyers and doctors, with humanitarian workers and human rights defenders, with teachers and engineers.

We can combine military and civilian, along with diplomacy and development – and we have a long history in building and protecting peace.

The good news is that over the past years, we have started to develop a European defence ecosystem.

But what we need is the European Defence Union.

In the last weeks, there have been many discussions on expeditionary forces. On what type and how many we need: battlegroups or EU entry forces.

This is no doubt part of the debate – and I believe it will be part of the solution.

But the more fundamental issue is why this has not worked in the past.

You can have the most advanced forces in the world – but if you are never prepared to use them - of what use are they? 

What has held us back until now is not just a shortfall of capacity – it is the lack of political will.

And if we develop this political will, there is a lot that we can do at EU level.

Allow me to give you three concrete examples:

First, we need to build the foundation for collective decision-making – this is what I call situational awareness.

We fall short if Member States active in the same region, do not share their information on the European level. It is vital that we improve intelligence cooperation.

But this is not just about intelligence in the narrow sense.

It is about bringing together the knowledge from all services and all sources. From space to police trainers, from open source to development agencies. Their work gives us a unique scope and depth of knowledge.

It is out there!

But we can only use that, to make informed decisions if we have the full picture. And this is currently not the case. We have the knowledge, but it is disjoined. Information is fragmented.

This is why the EU could consider its own Joint Situational Awareness Centre to fuse all the different pieces of information. 

And to be better prepared, to be fully informed and to be able to decide.

Secondly, we need to improve interoperability. This is why we are already investing in common European platforms, from fighter jets, to drones and cyber.

But we have to keep thinking of new ways to use all possible synergies. One example could be to consider waiving VAT when buying defence equipment developed and produced in Europe.

This would not only increase our interoperability, but also decrease our dependencies of today.

Third, we cannot talk about defence without talking about cyber. If everything is connected, everything can be hacked. Given that resources are scarce, we have to bundle our forces. And we should not just be satisfied to address the cyber threat, but also strive to become a leader in cyber security.

It should be here in Europe where cyber defence tools are developed. This is why we need a European Cyber Defence Policy, including legislation on common standards under a new European Cyber Resilience Act.

So, we can do a lot at EU level. But Member States need to do more too.

This starts with a common assessment of the threats we face and a common approach to dealing with them. The upcoming Strategic Compass is a key process of this discussion.  

And we need to decide how we can use all of the possibilities that are already in the Treaty.

This is why, under the French Presidency, President Macron and I will convene a Summit on European defence.

It is time for Europe to step up to the next level."

Its wonder we never bring the 105 overseas, it would pack a goid punch and as a last resort a good anti tank weapon

Which begs the question do we need the 105 and should we even bother replacing it when its time up. We would be better of with a 105 mounted on a mowag if anything

No print article available to post yet, but Sky News are reporting that an F-35 off of HMS Queen Elizabeth crashed into the Mediterranean this morning. The pilot ejected, though it doesn't say safely or otherwise.

Presumably this is a US Marine Corps aircraft because AFAIK they are the only airwing embarked on said Carrier to date.

At $80 million a pop, the operators of F-35 aren't going to be thrilled if such losses start mounting up.

Some more info on what happened (take off issues) and the current steps being taken to find an secure the wreck:

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1461640897079226378

********************

In Regards to the below article about the 139's door falling off. Not blaming the normal guards but why had they not the landing area in the park secure or where they even requested to secure the area?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/door-falls-off-air-corps-helicopter-after-public-distract-crew-41049137.html

And has been ignored by everyone since then…

Even if we didn’t have the manpower losses, the establishment figures weren’t enough for 9 ships let alone more, yet there’s still no intention to increase that, so again I don’t see any suggestion that there is any official support or knowledge of a plan to grow the NS.

The 12 ship figure most likely dates back to the study in the 90s.

Exactly. The concept of the first MRV is only now being explored by naval architects advising the Government.

I don't recall any mention at any time about a second.

To be blunt though, what was said coming up on 20 years ago in no way suggests that there is or even was a firm intention to purchase a second MRV hull, nor is there any suggestion of the Capital Budget having the capacity for another €200+ million purchase, I say 200 million as I can't see a MRV coming in south of €150m even as bare bones as it might be.

Given that nothing at all will change until 2023 (as it will have to be the next budget at best before anything changes)2 even if the Government was willing to take the political hit in increasing defence spending, not too mention the question of whether the current government will still be around by then, hopping for something in 2022 is a bit of a forlorn hope anyway. I mean did you see one of the Senators standing up declaring no Irish company should be involved in the defence sector last week?

Willful Stupidity rather than naivety imo...

Extracts from letter to Irish Times from retired Lt Colonel Joe Ahern, published today:

Too priceless a response not to post.

The below is taken from the article you speak off. Nothing to worry about😬

The commission sent draft versions to senior officials in the Department of Defence and Defence Forces in November. Civilian and military officials believed the draft did not adequately address the commission’s terms of reference.

They described the report as vague and contradictory in places, including in relation to Army command structures, the future of the Defence Forces’ headquarters and future interactions between civilian and military officials.

The Defence Forces’ criticisms were the most severe and included complaints about a lack of focus on developing future capabilities and a lack of ambition on how to address the retention crisis

The Times has a new article:

[QUOTE]

The government has no plan to increase the military in a significant way, according to sources

The government is making plans to turn the Defence Forces into a leaner and smarter military backed by advanced technology to protect the state in the decades ahead.

The Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces is due to report later this month but it is understood the government is already preparing for reform of the army, naval service and air corps.

The plan hopes to transform the Defence Forces into an “interoperable fighting force” capable of fulfilling its mission using new technology. The government has no plan to increase the military in a significant way, according to sources familiar with the issue.

The commission, which is chaired by the former civil servant Aidan O’Driscoll, is due to meet this month to agree on a series of recommendations that are the subject of ongoing debate and intense behind-the-scenes lobbying. The report was due to be submitted to the government last month but this was postponed because of disagreements over its contents.

The Defence Forces is seeking to establish a “tech-enabled” military force capable of detecting and responding to threats in multiple domains.

In written submissions, it had sought significantly enhanced capabilities for the Air Corps and Naval Service to allow them to respond to threats in Irish-controlled air space and Ireland’s maritime territory, while the army is seeking enhanced protection for overseas operations. The commission is unlikely to make all of these recommendations.

Closures of barracks are unlikely to be proposed.

The role of the Defence Forces in protecting the state against international terrorist groups and hostile states has been considered.

The Department of Justice and garda headquarters did not make any formal submissions to the commission during its research phase but have made representations concerning the role of military intelligence, known as J2, asking that it be more legally defined, according to political sources.

The military has for decades monitored the activities of foreign intelligence services from countries such as Russia on Irish soil.

The issue of what J2 does with such intelligence has become the focus of some debate.

Intelligence gathered by J2 is shared with European countries and the United States but limited information is shared with garda headquarters, who themselves provide limited information to the Defence Forces, which has a long standing expertise in the area.

The two agencies have also mounted simultaneous operations against the same targets, leading to inter-agency conflict and duplication of resources.

The Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (Raco) had urged the commission to recommend the establishment of a national intelligence service but this is unlikely to happen.

Conor King, the Raco spokesman, said if granted this would have brought Ireland into line with other EU countries. The military itself has campaigned for the creation of a civilian intelligence agency since the 1970s.

Declan Power, an independent security analyst, said he feared the commission was a missed opportunity to develop and advocate for a new agile defence force for the state.

“Why put together a commission on defence when they feel they may have to discard or ignore their contribution, which begs the question on how much serious thought was put into the composition of this commission in the first place,” he said.

Ger Guinan of the Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association said he believed the government was making advance plans for what the commission was likely to report.

“The Defence Forces have been in such bad condition so it doesn’t surprise me that aspects of the commission’s report have been planned for already,” he said.[/QUOTE]

Given the issues just trying to hold onto specialists right now, the idea of "leaner and smarter" seems a sick joke, not too mention that even if you got both the NS and AC up to establishment figures, it won't be enough.

Don't know, could just be an argument over resources, maybe the Gardaí are worried about J2 getting more money?