US approves €40m deal to sell Javelin anti-tank missile systems to Ireland
The US state department has approved a €40 million deal to sell advanced missile systems to Ireland.
The deal will significantly expand the
Defence Forces
' stock of FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles, which are already deployed with its Unifil mission in
Lebanon
.
Ireland
has operated the Javelin
, which is made by
US
defence companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, since 2006. The latest purchase will add 35 missile launchers and 44 missiles to Defence Forces stocks. The missiles can cost upwards of €70,000 each.
Under US law, the state department must notify the US Congress of exports of military equipment that exceed a certain value.
READ MORE
According to regulations, such sales are not approved if they might weaken US national security or if the equipment could be used against US interests.
The deal, which will be worth an estimated $46 million (€40.44 million), has been approved by US officials. It was confirmed this week by the Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA), a part of the defence department that overseas foreign military sales.
Included in the package is technical assistance from the US government, training, advanced training simulators, containers and 'related elements of logistics and program support'.
The state department approved the deal on the basis that it will support US foreign policy goals by improving Ireland's ability to participate in UN peacekeeping missions and Nato's Partnership for Peace programme, the DSCA said.
The sale will not alter 'the basic military balance in the region', another key consideration for the US government when assessing foreign military sales.
It will also not involve deploying any US troops to Ireland and 'will have no adverse impact on US defense readiness', the DSCA said.
Ireland's Defence Forces have never fired a Javelin in combat, but missile stocks have been depleted over the years through training exercises. The missiles also have expiry dates, after which they must be destroyed.
The Javelin launcher units, known as Lightweight Command Launch Units, are sometimes used without the missile components as reconnaissance tools. Their advanced targeting technology is useful in detecting potential threats at a distance.
The Defence Forces declined to comment on the deal on Friday. 'We do not give out specifics of our weapons systems for reasons of operational security,' a spokesman said.
The FGM-148 Javelin is a 'fire and forget' anti-tank system, meaning its user can retreat to cover immediately after firing.
The weapon has played a key role in Ukraine's defensive war against Russia. US-donated Javelins have proven to be highly effective at blunting Russian tank attacks.
Weighing 22kg, they can be operated by a three-person team. The guided projectile can hit a target 2km away with more than 90 per cent accuracy.
It can be used on targets hiding behind cover using its 'indirect fire' mode, which launches the missile on a long arcing trajectory.
The cost of the missiles means most Defence Forces training on the Javelin system is done using simulators. However, about once a year
a few selected soldiers get to shoot the real thing in a training scenario in the Glen of Imaal
in Co Wicklow.
At the beginning of
Russia's invasion in 2022
, Ireland faced calls to donate some or all of its Javelin stocks to Ukraine. However, the Government has limited the military assistance it offers to 'non-lethal' support, including body armour and medical kits.
It plans to donate some Defence Forces radar systems and to provide funding for armoured personnel carriers and demining equipment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
19 hours ago
- Irish Times
Smooth Company bids for success with Dutch launch
The Smooth Company, a haircare brand founded in Dublin by Áine Kennedy, has launched in the Netherlands, becoming the first Irish beauty brand to secure a listing at Dutch department store chain de Bijenkorf . The launch at the chain's flagship Amsterdam on Thursday was attended by Ms Kennedy and family members, including her TikTok sensation grandfather Billy, as well as the Irish ambassador to the Netherlands, Ann Derwin. Ms Derwin told the event that the company's Dutch debut was a 'true testament to the innovation and global ambition of Irish enterprises'. In an interview with The Irish Times this week, Ms Kennedy said de Bijenkorf – which is owned by Brown Thomas Arnotts parent Selfridges – will stock the Smooth Company's hair-smoothing products in its eight stores. READ MORE She said the launch was a 'huge' moment for the brand. 'We already have a lot of Dutch customers,' Ms Kennedy said. 'A lot of them were asking us already where they could shop in-store.' [ Smooth Company's Aine Kennedy: 'My screen time is outrageous. I don't have a work-life balance at the moment' ] The Lucan-based entrepreneur said the Smooth Company was 'really selective' about retail partner. 'It has to be the right fit for us, so I wasn't settling for anyone less than de Bijenkorf.' Launching on new markets is 'nerve-racking', Ms Kennedy said. 'It brings its own set of challenges, but the team over there have been amazing.' Ms Kennedy founded the company in 2022, capitalising on her significant following on TikTok. It has been focused largely on online sales. She said the company had amassed more than 150 million organic views on the social media platform. The Smooth Company's products are available in Brown Thomas as well as Dublin Airport, and Ms Kennedy is aiming to secure more international retail listings, having recently launched in the UK at the Trinny London store in Chelsea.
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Defence Forces taking part in EU missions without triple lock 'could breach neutrality'
Ireland's Defence Forces could become embroiled in peacekeeping missions that could jeopardise Ireland's military neutrality if Government proposals to scrap UN authorisation for such deployments is passed, an Oireachtas committee has heard. Ray Murphy, a professor at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway, said if Ireland took part in an EU force without a UN mandate — with the monitoring and controls coming with that — it could end up in situations not originally envisaged that would end up breaching our neutrality. Prof Murphy was one of three academics who took part in a three-hour session at the Oireachtas defence and national security committee, which is holding hearings on the Defence Bill 2025. The draft legislation proposes to remove the requirement for UN approval to send Defence Forces abroad. It also plans to increase from 12 to 50 the number of personnel that can be sent overseas without the Government needing the support of the Dáil. Defence Bill 2025 The bill would authorise Irish troops to take part in an 'international force' for the purposes of peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and international security 'consistent with the principles of the United Nations charter'. Examples of such bodies include the OSCE, the EU, or 'any other body' that operates in manner consistent with UN principles. All three academics at the committee are strongly opposed to the Government proposals to remove the 'triple lock'. It is not clear if the committee is due to hear from academics who are non-committed on the issue or who are in favour of removing the triple lock. Prof Murphy said: 'Any deployment of Defence Forces with an international force will be subject to certain mandatory principles. These are that the particular international force will be mandated to operate for peacekeeping, conflict prevention, and/or strengthening international security, in accordance with international law and consistent with the principles of the UN.' He asked who would determine if a regional body 'operates in a manner consistent' with the UN charter and international law, especially if Security Council or General Assembly approval is not obtained. Situations on the ground 'can change' Prof Murphy said situations on the ground can change and that Irish troops 'could become embroiled in something' that wasn't originally envisaged — and that such a situation could 'certainly jeopardise' military neutrality. He described the proposals as a 'betrayal' to commitments made by governments to its citizens and that they would grant any government 'excessive authority'. Karen Devine, lecturer in European politics at DCU, told the committee that as an academic her job is to 'tell the truth'. She said public support for neutrality has been consistent over the decades, with four in five people in favour of it. She alleged that 'militarists', consisting of the EU, Nato, and the military-industrial complex, 'seek to eradicate' Irish neutrality including the triple lock and want to 'militarise' the EU. She further alleged that these were joined by 'university agents', (professors she effectively identified), think tanks, and the 'mass media', who promoted this agenda.
Irish Examiner
4 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Government can't replace triple lock with vague criteria for deploying our troops
In the pipeline for over two years, the Government has finally published the general scheme for its proposed end to the triple lock. This 'heads of Bill' sets out the key provisions that will govern future deployment overseas of Irish troops. The process has hardly been rushed. The fact that the draft law has technical provisions covering arrangements for pre-1993 and Reserve Force members shows the department and Defence Forces have thought through the consequences of the changes. What is far less clear is the political thinking behind it. Two years after Taoiseach Micheál Martin's 2023 Consultative Forum on International Security Policy, there is little sign of any big political analysis in what will be a fundamental shift in how we decide peacekeeping and military engagement. The push to reform the triple lock — which requires Government and Dáil approval, plus a UN mandate before deploying more than 12 Defence Forces personnel overseas — rests on the reality that the UN Security Council has not approved a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. Retaining legislation that does not recognise this stark fact of UN politics is empty symbolism. While the 'Triple Lock' phrase is a recent construct, the law that underpins it is the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960. It enshrined the core principle of a UN mandate. As did its later updates in 1993 and 2006, each update taking account of evolving circumstances. Introducing the 1960 Act in the Dáil, An Taoiseach Seán Lemass said, '…it is not only our moral duty but in our national interests to support the growth of the influence and power of the United Nations.' While the language may be a tad outdated, it describes a principled stance, grounded in national interest. One that still applies. Vague criteria I do not believe this government wants to abandon multilateralism. But the text it has produced suggests that neither an Taoiseach nor Tánaiste have given proper political thought to the impact of removing direct references to UN authority from our law. Citing Russia vetoes may make a good put-down in a terse discussion, but policy making by punchline is not good government. The criteria that replace the third element of the triple lock are vague. Head 6 cites 'principles of the United Nations Charter' and 'conformity with the principles of justice and international law.' Both are honourable principles but the heads of bill, as drafted, would effectively leave it to the government of the day to decide if the criteria were met. There is no reference to specific UN or OSCE resolutions. There is no requirement that missions be mandated by such resolutions. In effect, the opinion of the government of the day would replace a specific UN mandate. Removing the UN mandate requirement without robust, transparent criteria is a mistake. It risks eroding public trust in the legitimacy of and integrity of the process of sending troops on overseas missions. The public does not distinguish between peace support deployments to Lebanon or Congo, which were both UN-led, or to Kosovo or Bosnia which were Nato-led, or to Chad, which was EU-led. Regardless of who leads or runs a mission, the public views them all as UN-mandated missions. Peacekeeping deployments that were all in pursuance of UN resolutions. These missions also had widescale cross-party Dáil support. Replacing an explicit multilateral mandate with a politically subjective text risks politicising the process. We do not want future deployments decided by tight Dáil votes, where partisan, government versus opposition, considerations dominate. This would undermine public confidence. We should not squander such a valuable trust. Solution I understand what the Government is trying to achieve, but it is doing it the wrong way. Meanwhile, the total Opposition approach from across the Dáil floor, is just as flawed. Cross-party consensus is the way forward. And despite the rhetoric, it is within our grasp. We can create a new law that addresses current realities without undermining public support for future deployments. Instead of pushing through its proposals as outlined, the Government should invite Opposition amendments that clarify deployment criteria. Criteria and tests that better express our commitment to multilateralism. In return, the Opposition must accept that the 1960 Act needs reform and draft criteria that both recognise that the UN Security Council has not established a new mission since 2014 and reaffirm our national commitment to multilateralism. Playing party politics with this reform risks politicising future deployments. We spend too little political time discussing national defence and security. Wouldn't it be better to use what time we do make available, to addressing our massive defence shortfalls, especially as our Air Corps and Naval service struggle today to offer even the barest cover? We need a Defence Forces capable of meeting Ireland's obligations at home and also abroad. We need a principled multilateral framework for overseas deployments that commands public trust. That is the challenge facing us. With political direction and leadership from across the Dáil, we can have both.
