Thread for Irish defence matters.
Republic of Ireland defence thread
- Thread starter StingrayOZ
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I think that considering Ireland's economy, it can deter not only potential enemies with whom it has dealings, especially with its very low tax that allows it to be a tax haven, but also invest in credible defense. It being an island should make it easier.
An A2AD zone, a ground QRF, aerial QRF, and that's it.
I think a credible military capability and deterrence will help in preventing a British intervention in case of threat on Ireland, which I assume the Irish would not be pleased with.
Being part of a larger EU effort to create a European army (a fantasy IMO but okay), investing a mere 0.2% of GDP into defense is symbolic at best.
An A2AD zone, a ground QRF, aerial QRF, and that's it.
I think a credible military capability and deterrence will help in preventing a British intervention in case of threat on Ireland, which I assume the Irish would not be pleased with.
Being part of a larger EU effort to create a European army (a fantasy IMO but okay), investing a mere 0.2% of GDP into defense is symbolic at best.
Plus the fact that being a EU member and neighbouring the U.K; in the extremely unlikely event the Republic of Ireland faced a external threat; it would receive external assistance.
It would seem the Irish government is looking into what needs to change regarding their defence posture.
If this article is to be believed some big % increases are being looked at. Though with current spending so low as % of GDP (0.2-0.3%) even doubling it would still leave it spending less than a lot of other countries. Of course this may be enough depending on what the government wants the armed forces to be able to do. Though there are other signs that the defence forces are not being allowed to keep any underspend.
From previous articles and current strength seems there are quite a few capability gaps they may want to fill, in particular an air QRF which would probably be the biggest new expense and would have to be built from the ground up, including any supporting infrastructure. This may also be a capability being pushed by the UK and would likely need their support in setting up. - 2nd Article.
Air corps wise Maritime Patrol aircraft would be another good investment to help cover the Irish EEZ and provide both situational awareness as well as a capacity to respond. Both these would be investments that would have helped the Irish government monitor the Russian exercise that they are planning to undertake within the Irish EEZ and help to respond to other grey zone or hybrid warfare activities.
Naval wise could see acquisition of some more patrol vessels or small corvette/frigate style ships. There was talk of Ireland buying a couple of the Lake class from NZ, but believe that has fallen through
Will be interesting to see what ends up happening as it seems clear there are capability gaps as shown by the inability to monitor the Russian exercise and UK covering the air QRA requirement. Government may decide they are happy with the status quo but there seems to be signs that may not be the case as the strategic situation looks to be going in the wrong direction.
If this article is to be believed some big % increases are being looked at. Though with current spending so low as % of GDP (0.2-0.3%) even doubling it would still leave it spending less than a lot of other countries. Of course this may be enough depending on what the government wants the armed forces to be able to do. Though there are other signs that the defence forces are not being allowed to keep any underspend.
From previous articles and current strength seems there are quite a few capability gaps they may want to fill, in particular an air QRF which would probably be the biggest new expense and would have to be built from the ground up, including any supporting infrastructure. This may also be a capability being pushed by the UK and would likely need their support in setting up. - 2nd Article.
Air corps wise Maritime Patrol aircraft would be another good investment to help cover the Irish EEZ and provide both situational awareness as well as a capacity to respond. Both these would be investments that would have helped the Irish government monitor the Russian exercise that they are planning to undertake within the Irish EEZ and help to respond to other grey zone or hybrid warfare activities.
Naval wise could see acquisition of some more patrol vessels or small corvette/frigate style ships. There was talk of Ireland buying a couple of the Lake class from NZ, but believe that has fallen through
Will be interesting to see what ends up happening as it seems clear there are capability gaps as shown by the inability to monitor the Russian exercise and UK covering the air QRA requirement. Government may decide they are happy with the status quo but there seems to be signs that may not be the case as the strategic situation looks to be going in the wrong direction.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Ireland is probably more of a pacifist country than Japan. Although it's engaged with Europe from its EU membership, for whatever reason there's been very little interest in taking a more active position on the military front. Which is perhaps odd given the fact that Ireland's independence was at least in part achieved through force of arms. One might have thought they'd be a bit more ready to see the benefit of having a decent armed force.
Ireland's policy has long been "if we don't bother anyone, they won't bother us". It will take a lot more than Russian naval exercises to significantly increase defence spending. The general public don't even want to pay for Northern Ireland, despite being in favour of unification. With that sort of doublethink, I don't see them getting behind a real change in defence policy.
Ireland's policy has long been "if we don't bother anyone, they won't bother us". It will take a lot more than Russian naval exercises to significantly increase defence spending. The general public don't even want to pay for Northern Ireland, despite being in favour of unification. With that sort of doublethink, I don't see them getting behind a real change in defence policy.
Last edited:
Not sure I would be comparing to Japan, which although only spending ~1.3% GDP has an armed forces of ~250,000 active personnel including 20+ submarines, large amphibious warships/aircraft carriers and 30+ major surface combatants. Their pacifism is also mostly a hangover from the second world war and was not really their choice.
A better comparison is probably New Zealand, which has a similar population and is also quite adverse to spending on defence. Also not sure not wanting to pay for Northern Ireland reunification is not really the same thing. I can see why people would want to reunify but not pay more tax. I'm sure if you asked the scots who were pro-independence if they would like to pay more tax or reduce services they would also be against paying more.
While Irelands policy of "if we don't bother anyone, they won't bother us" is a admirable policy, not all other countries have the same view and while the general public are probably against increasing defence spending, my guess is they probably believe the defence forces are more capable or in a better place than they are. This is probably true for quite a few western countries.
For example, if you were to ask the average person "Does the Irish Defence force have the ability to enforce the sovereignty of Irish airspace without help from another nation?" my guess is they would think they do. Would the average person believe "The Irish defence force has the ability to know if an unknown aircraft is breaching Irish controlled Airspace.
All it takes is one or two incidents for questions to be asked about whether Ireland is spending enough. Are the chances of an incident increasing?
Is the lack of ability to respond a possible reason why Russia is conducting this exercise in the Irish and therefore EU (But not NATO) EEZ?
Its possible that the Irish government decide that the amount they are spending now is all they are willing to spend, which is their right as a nation. Doesn't change the fact that there are significant capability gaps that force them to be reliant on other nations.
Also, Is there a question about whether they can afford their current force structure with the current budget? There are reports they are struggling with retention due to pay and are significantly understaffed at the moment?
A better comparison is probably New Zealand, which has a similar population and is also quite adverse to spending on defence. Also not sure not wanting to pay for Northern Ireland reunification is not really the same thing. I can see why people would want to reunify but not pay more tax. I'm sure if you asked the scots who were pro-independence if they would like to pay more tax or reduce services they would also be against paying more.
While Irelands policy of "if we don't bother anyone, they won't bother us" is a admirable policy, not all other countries have the same view and while the general public are probably against increasing defence spending, my guess is they probably believe the defence forces are more capable or in a better place than they are. This is probably true for quite a few western countries.
For example, if you were to ask the average person "Does the Irish Defence force have the ability to enforce the sovereignty of Irish airspace without help from another nation?" my guess is they would think they do. Would the average person believe "The Irish defence force has the ability to know if an unknown aircraft is breaching Irish controlled Airspace.
All it takes is one or two incidents for questions to be asked about whether Ireland is spending enough. Are the chances of an incident increasing?
Is the lack of ability to respond a possible reason why Russia is conducting this exercise in the Irish and therefore EU (But not NATO) EEZ?
Its possible that the Irish government decide that the amount they are spending now is all they are willing to spend, which is their right as a nation. Doesn't change the fact that there are significant capability gaps that force them to be reliant on other nations.
Also, Is there a question about whether they can afford their current force structure with the current budget? There are reports they are struggling with retention due to pay and are significantly understaffed at the moment?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Yes, which means others won't be very accepting of a situation of one sided support. At least not for long.
If Ireland wants to get support, it must be able to also provide support.
This blew up on NATO a while ago, with the American demands to restore the armed forces across Europe.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
As I said, it's doublethink. "I'm in favour of Irish reunification but not the consequences of it". Northern Ireland has a £10 billion deficit in its public services, so Dublin would be obliged to pick up the tab because it's the central government. Making Northern Ireland cut £10 billion from its spending would cause extreme civil unrest.
So whilst it's possible that the Irish public could be convinced that the defence forces should be boosted, it's also possible they'll refuse to pay for it, meaning it doesn't happen.
Certainly I doubt they feel they're deficient. However, from my limited understanding I think the general public's view on defence - if they have any - is that the defence forces are only required to deal with terrorism and a limited amount of civil unrest. The idea of anyone rolling tanks into Ireland or firing missiles at it is unthinkable for most.
There might be more discussion over it, but I don't think there's any momentum to see real change. I think it would take something like loss of life to cause a real change, e.g. an Irish fishing boat being rammed and sunk by a Chinese or Russian ship.
Possibly not, but so long as the government papers over the cracks and refuses to increase borrowing/taxes they'll just have to make cuts.
@Mikeymike The RNZN IPV that the Irish looked at were two Protector Class IPV not Lake Class patrol boats. The Lake Class were British built patrol boats that were in service from 1974 - 1991. They weren't fit for service in NZ waters and were known as bone breakers. Yes I am aware that non NZ sources refer to the Protector IPV as Lake Class, but that they are not by NZDF.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Actually they are Lake Class I am going to disagree. It has been a mix up since the beginning... I remember seeing documents before they were built calling the Lake Class back then and even the names of them... replacing the old IPC's Lake Class with the newer IPV's Lake Class.
HMNZS Canterbury is a Protector-fleet amphibious and military sealift vessel.
HMNZS Otago & Wellington Protector Class OPV's
But the IPV's have always been "Lake Class" from the very beginning. Every one else started calling them "Rotoiti Class" the "Protector Class" when the RNZN and NZDF called them Lake Class...
On the Navy Website they are called "Lake Class" (and was "Lake Class" on their old website as well) Pretty sure they know what the class their vessels are.
Just sayin ;-)
Jeez didn't realise that. the documentation I had been using was the overall Protector project documents, so made the presumption that they were all Protector class. That'll teach me. Thanks for that.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Governments like the Republic of Ireland's, which have not faced any significant external threats for an extended period of time, will struggle to convince their electors of the need for defence spending when the electors have more immediate and pressing interests (such as health, education, employment etc). The first call on any increase in the Irish defence budget will be to cover an improvement in pay and conditions which currently are causing manpower issues.
Mods - should this thread be merged with the existing Irish Defence Forces thread?
Agree. Something for @StingrayOZ to put on his to do list.
Just for reference the Commission on the Defence force was released last week (09th Feb) and can be found here. I've only been able to have a quick read so far but looks quite in-depth covering a lot of the aspects/issues including staffing/retention, command and control structures etc.
It breaks down the different spending levels by three Levels of Ambition (LOA) with LOA 1 generally being the current business as usual spending amount. (See below image of LOA definitions)
Though being set out as three different levels it seems to make it clear they are not all equal choices with the report stating:
The costs of the three different LOA:
Here is the press release with the Defence ministers comments, in particular next steps.
It breaks down the different spending levels by three Levels of Ambition (LOA) with LOA 1 generally being the current business as usual spending amount. (See below image of LOA definitions)
Though being set out as three different levels it seems to make it clear they are not all equal choices with the report stating:
The costs of the three different LOA:
Here is the press release with the Defence ministers comments, in particular next steps.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The summary of the report has some significant observations, including:
"There is no implication that the Commission finds all three LOAs to be equally credible. In particular, the Commission is clear that LOA 1 – essentially the continuation of “business as usual” – will leave this country unable to meet its desired level of military deployment overseas, weak on ATCP and ATCA (effectively MACA/C - Military Aid to the Civil Authorities/Community) capabilities and, most importantly, without a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period."
The summary also suggested:
".....the Commission has identified a range of key capability priorities in the land, air and maritime domains that would need to be prioritised for LOA 2 to be met. These include:
o Providing improved troop protection, fire power and air and coastal defence for land forces, particularly in the light of more demanding roles overseas;
o Enhanced situational awareness with recognised maritime and air pictures through the acquisition and development of primary radar, coastal radar and associated systems’ to allow the development of a Recognised Air Picture to support national security;
o Accelerating the upgrade of the naval fleet and operating it to an optimum level through double crewing and greater use of technology;
o Enhanced mobility and lift through an increased and enlarged fleet of fixed and rotary aircraft and access to appropriate multinational arrangements to enhance its troop transport, cargo and ATCA capabilities......" plus other essential capabilities.
The highest level of ambition (LOA3) was summarised as:
"LOA 3 would require Ireland to develop significantly strengthened capabilities in all domains, with commensurately higher levels of defence spending – of the order of two and a half to three times overall defence spending in recent years." It also detailed the capabilities required to meet this ambition as:
"o Developing a substantial mechanised component of the Army offering state of the art force protection, communications, ISTAR2 and firepower;
o A balanced fleet of at least 12 naval ships, supported by appropriate technology;
o Air combat and intercept capability through the acquisition of a squadron of combat aircraft;
o Combat aircraft, pilots and support personnel to provide organic intra‐theatre mobility
based on tactical transport helicopters to support overseas deployment of air assets;...." plus cyber warfare and enhancements to the ARW (Army Ranger Wing) - the Irish SF component.
The recent Russian Navy live fire exercise in the Irish EEZ plus ongoing aircraft incursions need to be highlighted to the Irish community in order to gain the public support for at least LOA 2, and hopefully LOA 3.
"There is no implication that the Commission finds all three LOAs to be equally credible. In particular, the Commission is clear that LOA 1 – essentially the continuation of “business as usual” – will leave this country unable to meet its desired level of military deployment overseas, weak on ATCP and ATCA (effectively MACA/C - Military Aid to the Civil Authorities/Community) capabilities and, most importantly, without a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period."
The summary also suggested:
".....the Commission has identified a range of key capability priorities in the land, air and maritime domains that would need to be prioritised for LOA 2 to be met. These include:
o Providing improved troop protection, fire power and air and coastal defence for land forces, particularly in the light of more demanding roles overseas;
o Enhanced situational awareness with recognised maritime and air pictures through the acquisition and development of primary radar, coastal radar and associated systems’ to allow the development of a Recognised Air Picture to support national security;
o Accelerating the upgrade of the naval fleet and operating it to an optimum level through double crewing and greater use of technology;
o Enhanced mobility and lift through an increased and enlarged fleet of fixed and rotary aircraft and access to appropriate multinational arrangements to enhance its troop transport, cargo and ATCA capabilities......" plus other essential capabilities.
The highest level of ambition (LOA3) was summarised as:
"LOA 3 would require Ireland to develop significantly strengthened capabilities in all domains, with commensurately higher levels of defence spending – of the order of two and a half to three times overall defence spending in recent years." It also detailed the capabilities required to meet this ambition as:
"o Developing a substantial mechanised component of the Army offering state of the art force protection, communications, ISTAR2 and firepower;
o A balanced fleet of at least 12 naval ships, supported by appropriate technology;
o Air combat and intercept capability through the acquisition of a squadron of combat aircraft;
o Combat aircraft, pilots and support personnel to provide organic intra‐theatre mobility
based on tactical transport helicopters to support overseas deployment of air assets;...." plus cyber warfare and enhancements to the ARW (Army Ranger Wing) - the Irish SF component.
The recent Russian Navy live fire exercise in the Irish EEZ plus ongoing aircraft incursions need to be highlighted to the Irish community in order to gain the public support for at least LOA 2, and hopefully LOA 3.
That is an impact of the large number of multi-nationals that have Ireland as their base for tax purposes. The use of GNI instead of GDP is mentioned in the report, for example below.Interesting they apply GNI and not GDP because with GDP the expenditure would be 5.36 bln € an increase of 50%.
In about 2015-16 a change in Apple's accounting increased Ireland's GDP by, IIRC, about 15% in one year, & a smaller but still large amount the next year. There was no increase in Irish incomes, physical production, or anything else except in which column profits were recorded in Apple's ledgers, held on servers a long way from Ireland.
GDP is an outdated measure in some ways. It doesn't matter much for most countries, but for tax havens like Ireland it can produce nonsensical output measures. Hence the Irish CSO's switch to GNI*, with the blessing of Eurostat. It's a much better measure of the real size of the Irish economy.
GDP is an outdated measure in some ways. It doesn't matter much for most countries, but for tax havens like Ireland it can produce nonsensical output measures. Hence the Irish CSO's switch to GNI*, with the blessing of Eurostat. It's a much better measure of the real size of the Irish economy.
Looks like they are looking at increasing spending to at least the Level of Ambition 2 level in the previous report.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/RKQTMN6O222TD6XUCVCPJTR6ZA.jpg)
www.irishtimes.com
Just as a reminder what LOA 2 would include you can see the below summary from the report.
Some other articles state mostly the same, though this one does say they are looking at somewhere between LOA 2 and 3.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/4MTYCV7XJJRGHNRYBRWCEVCSMA.jpg)
www.irishtimes.com
The below article states it is too be taken to cabinet this week so hopefully we start to see some outline of what exactly it will involve.
www.breakingnews.ie
Ireland’s defence spending set to rise by at least 50%, says Coveney
Proposal to spend extra €500m a year falls short of most ambitious commission target
Just as a reminder what LOA 2 would include you can see the below summary from the report.
Some other articles state mostly the same, though this one does say they are looking at somewhere between LOA 2 and 3.
Increase in defence spending likely to take at least three years
Current proposals are to increase spending over the course of several years
The below article states it is too be taken to cabinet this week so hopefully we start to see some outline of what exactly it will involve.
Government spending on Defence Forces to increase to €1.5 billion a year by 2028 | BreakingNews.ie
The Government's spending on the Defence Forces is set to increase to €1.5 billion a year by 2028.According to the Sunday Independent, Minister for Defence Simon Coveney will bring a memo to cabinet this week outlining what will be the biggest military investment in the history
www.breakingnews.ie