Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Savage93 · 02-07-2015 7:55pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It's OK.

Ireland is never going to have a well maintained military as long as we continue re-electing gombeens in the form of FFGLAB. SF actively promote the concept of total neutrality (ie, not outsourcing air policing to the Brits) so a Sinn Féin led govt may actually be a GOOD thing for this republic and her forces.

Sinn Fein have always been pro "military" and a Sinn Fein government would issue balaclavas to all DF personnel and provide an annual budget from bank robberies, extortion, protection rackets, drugs etc, so there should be minimal burden on the taxpayer

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Markcheese · 02-07-2015 8:08pm

Not being funny or anything but does anyone seriously expect fighter jets and a couple of frigates ? Bit of a jump from patrol vessels to full on frigates ?
Realistically what would their role be -? patrol ? - at vastly higher capital and operational cost than the beckets ect .

IrishTrajan · 02-07-2015 8:20pm

sparky42 wrote: »

I think you are being wildly opptomistic/taking the mick, there's no way we'd buy Huitfeldt class, hell it would be a welcomed but divine miracle if the decision was made to go for an Absalon order. The 23's considering they will be flogged to death at the rate the 26 program is being delayed I don't think anyone is going to buy them when the End of Life, (given the cuts already I don't see the UK selling off anymore of them before the replacements start).

Of course, I'm being wildly optimistic. We'd probably spit on a raft made by Scouts with a machine gun on it and blame it for not being cost effective.

I just have a fascination with ships w/ ground-strike capabilities. It would definitely let us take a greater role in the world without actually endangering Irish lives (like parking the frigate in the Mediterranean and firing off a couple Tomahawks into ISIS in Libya or Iraq/Syria, or going around Africa to knock Boko Haram about).

Markcheese wrote: »

Not being funny or anything but does anyone seriously expect fighter jets and a couple of frigates ? Bit of a jump from patrol vessels to full on frigates ?

A frigate is the next step up in size, I think they usually weigh in at 4000-6000 tonnes (compared to 2000 tonne Beckett).

Markcheese wrote: »

Realistically what would their role be -? patrol ? - at vastly higher capital and operational cost than the beckets ect .

Something along the lines of patrol and air defences, and humanitarian missions and such. There's a bit of a variety in roles. The Iver Huitfeldt and the French FREMMs possess ground-strike capabilities, that is, they can hit targets on land while also possessing anti-ship, anti-submarine and anti-air defences.

Or you can choose to specialize: the Absalon can be converted to be a floating hospital, or it can do command/control. The Italian FREMMs are more orientated for air defence operations so they don't possess ground strike capabilities but I believe their radar and such is better (and more expensive) than the French variants.

Heavier ships can probably survive in the Atlantic better than our current OPVs, and simply are more versatile. You make them light, fast and make sure they pack a punch. Not as great as a Destroyer but definitely a step up from the OPVs we currently use.

Edit:

Also, yes, I would like us to get some fast jets. Or at least we get something with air space denial other than a feckin' SAAB MANPAD

Ren2k7 · 02-07-2015 8:47pm

Savage93 wrote: »

Sinn Fein have always been pro "military" and a Sinn Fein government would issue balaclavas to all DF personnel

Well balaclavas are usually issued to soldiers in the field......

Savage93 wrote: »

and provide an annual budget from bank robberies, extortion, protection rackets, drugs etc, so there should be minimal

The Dept of Finance would know all about bank robberies, extortion, protection rackets.

Drugs are the purvue of the HSE.

Ren2k7 · 02-07-2015 8:50pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Not being funny or anything but does anyone seriously expect fighter jets and a couple of frigates ? Bit of a jump from patrol vessels to full on frigates ?
Realistically what would their role be -? patrol ? - at vastly higher capital and operational cost than the beckets ect .

There shouldn't be any reason why the state couldn't opt for a single frigate in a support role. It's doable but highly unlikely at the present time. We'd be lucky if we got a few more Beckett's instead.

irishlad12345 · 02-07-2015 8:57pm

stepfather who was in the army used to tell me that "if we were invaded in the morning we have enough ammo to last 3 days if we are lucky then the army had to conduct guerrilla warfare". Do we really only have enough ammo to last 3 days of invasion ?

Manic Moran · 02-07-2015 9:02pm

[MOD] Gentlefolk, can we cut back a smidgen on the party politicals, and who is going to be better than whom at defense? After all, we're spending half our time on pipe dreams which nobody is going to fund, so it does nothing good for us. Just focus on the equipment and costs, not who is going to vote for them if at all possible[/MOD]

sparky42 · 02-07-2015 9:21pm

In terms of the Navy, I'd settle for the 1 for 1 replacement of the remaining three hulls (maybe either just P 60's if we wanted quick, or another improved version of the design) along with 2 EPV's (at best I'd guess that's what was meant by Frigate, can't see FF suggesting an actual all up Eurofrigate).

I'd hope for some more helicopters alright both with the capability to serve off the ships and actually be deployable for UN operations which I think is a major weakness we should have addressed in the last WP. Nothing fancy/cutting edge, just pick the best of the current gen mediums (not the NH 90 which still has issues from Australia to Germany), think that would improve the Air Corps hugely (though plenty of doctrine would have to change).

In terms of the Army, I still think we should look at adding some 120mm mortar MOWAG's along with whatever we choose to replace the Scorpion fleet (just to easy supplylines I'd look at the 105mm MOWAG).

For the question of fast jets, I'd prefer to start with getting Primary Radar systems operational to actually see our airspace, after that there's a whole other question about getting jets. Still think we'd have to go to a current gen fighter to be able to police our airspace, trainers won't be able to do the job.

Ren2k7 · 02-07-2015 10:08pm

I recall it mentioned that since the publication of the 2000 White Paper the Irish EEZ had been expanded. As part of that WP's defence posture a 8 ship naval service was considered sufficient. But doesn't that mean a fleet of that size is now insufficient to our needs. In other words logically the 2015 White Paper should recommend a larger fleet, ideally proportionate to the increase?

sparky42 · 02-07-2015 10:29pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I recall it mentioned that since the publication of the 2000 White Paper the Irish EEZ had been expanded. As part of that WP's defence posture a 8 ship naval service was considered sufficient. But doesn't that mean a fleet of that size is now insufficient to our needs. In other words logically the 2015 White Paper should recommend a larger fleet, ideally proportionate to the increase?

Fairly sure they had a study from PwC (I think) that suggested more than 8 anyway, but yes a larger fleet should be on the paper. Of course I'd bet both internal DOD politics and just normal politics will hamper the idea...

IrishTrajan · 02-07-2015 10:31pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I recall it mentioned that since the publication of the 2000 White Paper the Irish EEZ had been expanded. As part of that WP's defence posture a 8 ship naval service was considered sufficient. But doesn't that mean a fleet of that size is now insufficient to our needs. In other words logically the 2015 White Paper should recommend a larger fleet, ideally proportionate to the increase?

Yeah, our EEZ is now in the region of 500,000km2, with claims to around 900,000km2. It is for that reason I would ideally want us focusing our spending on the Naval Service.

The Air Corps is never going to be given the funding to actually operate as effectively as it should, and the Army simply lacks the need for many more troops. A strong navy would give us plenty of reach to engage in multilateral, bilateral, or indeed unilateral humanitarian efforts. A strong navy would give us air defence in Ireland (fulfilling a role within the Air Corps' niches), limited power projection capabilities, and would allow us to actually protect fishery zones and such within our territorial waters.

sparky42 · 04-07-2015 10:13pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yeah, our EEZ is now in the region of 500,000km2, with claims to around 900,000km2. It is for that reason I would ideally want us focusing our spending on the Naval Service.

The Air Corps is never going to be given the funding to actually operate as effectively as it should, and the Army simply lacks the need for many more troops. A strong navy would give us plenty of reach to engage in multilateral, bilateral, or indeed unilateral humanitarian efforts. A strong navy would give us air defence in Ireland (fulfilling a role within the Air Corps' niches), limited power projection capabilities, and would allow us to actually protect fishery zones and such within our territorial waters.

Air Defence Frigates wouldn't really deal with non combat air defence, ie the Russian bears know already that we aren't going to shoot them down, so even if we locked them up with a radar they'd just keep flying as they were. Also in the case of Air policing (ie intercepting non responsive passenger airlines) frigates aren't any use, for that you'd need a Fast Jet to be able to get up with the planes.

sparky42 · 05-07-2015 3:13pm

So the Sunday Times has "leaks", 2 new OPV's for 140 million (maybe another P60's at cost inflated prices?) and a "Frigate" to replace Eithne for 150 million. 10 million for Primary Radar sets for the IAA, replacement of the Air Corps fleet including the CASA's and replacement of the Army's APC fleet. Reserves to be increased to 4000.

Not bad, would have liked to see the Navy enlarged to 10-12 hulls for the size of the EEZ but it's not bad.

Markcheese · 05-07-2015 6:19pm

Did it put a time frame ?
Are the casa 's worn out or are they planning now for their eventual demise ?

sparky42 · 05-07-2015 6:22pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Did it put a time frame ?
Are the casa 's worn out or are they planning now for their eventual demise ?

No timeframe outside of the 10 years. With the CASA's I suppose it could be both, I mean by the end of the 10 years they will have seen what 25+ years flight? Would it be too much to think we'd get the 295's as replacements?

Silvera · 06-07-2015 12:01am

sparky42 wrote: »

No timeframe outside of the 10 years. With the CASA's I suppose it could be both, I mean by the end of the 10 years they will have seen what 25+ years flight? Would it be too much to think we'd get the 295's as replacements?

From what I've heard 'on the grapevine', the plan is to keep the 235's and to purchase 3 x 295 for long range patrols. All CASA's to be finished in grey (similar to the PC-9's). I cant see why the 235's wont 'soldier on' for many years to come? If we can get 40+ years from the Alouette III's and the Cessna's, why not from the 235's?

Does anybody here have a link to the Sunday Times article? "..Air Corps fleet replacement.." and "Army APC replacement"? ...that doesnt sound right? Perhaps it means 'CASA fleet replacement' ?
And why would the Mowag's need to be replaced already? Scorpion replacement - Yes. Mowag's - No.

Other than the CASA's, the only other AC aircraft which need to be looked at are the Cessna's.

sparky42 · 06-07-2015 12:06am

Silvera wrote: »

From what I've heard 'on the grapevine', the plan is to keep the 235's and to purchase 3 x 295 for long range patrols. All CASA's to be finished in grey (similar to the PC-9's).

Does anybody here have a link to the Sunday Times article?
"..Air Corps fleet replacement.."? ...that doesnt sound right?
Perhaps it means 'CASA fleet replacement'?

Other than that the other aircraft which need to be replaced are the Cessna's.

That would be a nice enlargement of the fleet, sorry I only have the dead tree version but here's the quote from it

Coveney also wants to replace much of the Air Corps fleet over the next decade, including the two CASA MPA's

BoJack Horseman · 06-07-2015 12:09am

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_CASA_C-295

The '295 does seem a bit of a step up alright.

Why are the Mowags to be replaced?

Silvera · 06-07-2015 12:11am

sparky42 wrote: »

That would be a nice enlargement of the fleet, sorry I only have the dead tree version but here's the quote from it

Ahh...."much of the fleet" sounds more like it, i.e. Cessna's and CASA's = 7 airframes. The PC-9's, AW139's and EC-135's are too 'new' to require replacement within the next 10 years.

sparky42 · 06-07-2015 12:21am

Silvera wrote: »

Ahh...."much of the fleet" sounds more like it, i.e. Cessna's and CASA's = 7 airframes. The PC-9's, AW139's and EC-135's are too 'new' to require replacement within the next 10 years.

That could be it alright, though if we are getting a "Frigate" with helicopter capability surely we are going to buy something with a hangar, at which point the question becomes what do we use on it.

sparky42 · 06-07-2015 12:23am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_CASA_C-295

The '295 does seem a bit of a step up alright.

Why are the Mowags to be replaced?

When did we get them and what has been their usage rate?

It could be that bundled into that is the Scorpion replacement and the whole question of what is bought to sustain that area? I know it's relatively small but...

Ren2k7 · 06-07-2015 3:23am

So maintaining an 8 ship naval service? Sigh.

sparky42 · 06-07-2015 3:51am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

So maintaining an 8 ship naval service? Sigh.

Considering we are looking at spending nearly twice as much for the next 3 as we did for the 3 P 60's along with a not so small increase in the Air Corps (if the 295's are right), I can live with it, I mean hell they could have just gone for 3 more OPV's rather than the EPV/Frigate.

We still don't have the budget position that alows (either financially or politically) what we would like to spend, this doesn't seem horrible if the first leaks are right.

Markcheese · 06-07-2015 10:25am

So if ( within 10 years) we end up with a helicopter capable patrol vessel ( or 3 depending on what gets ordered :-) )
Does that mean there'll be a dedicated naval air arm ? Or will it be the same fudge as the helicopter assigned to eithne originally - going back to baldonnel for tea.

sparky42 · 06-07-2015 1:52pm

Markcheese wrote: »

So if ( within 10 years) we end up with a helicopter capable patrol vessel ( or 3 depending on what gets ordered :-) )
Does that mean there'll be a dedicated naval air arm ? Or will it be the same fudge as the helicopter assigned to eithne originally - going back to baldonnel for tea.

I'd say we end up with it still in the Air Corps, hopefully though mroe willing to stay at sea.

BoJack Horseman · 06-07-2015 4:50pm

sparky42 wrote: »

10 million for Primary Radar sets for the IAA, r.

I would have thought that equipment for civil aviation authority would have cone from the dept of transport budget.

EireGun · 06-07-2015 9:25pm

Stephen O’Brien, Political Editor
Published: 5 July 2015

THE government is planning to buy a long-range radar system to keep track of covert aircraft such as the two Russian TU-95s which flew across Irish-controlled international airspace in January, defence minister Simon Coveney has confirmed, writes Stephen O’Brien.

The increased capability is recommended in a white paper due to be presented at cabinet later this month. It offers a radical reassessment of the military and other threats faced by the state.

Cyber attacks, extreme weather events, environmental accidents, and Islamic terrorism are among the threats being given a higher priority in defence planning, Coveney has told The Sunday Times.

“The white paper assesses the range, variety and complexity of traditional threats, but also looks at all the new threats,” he said. “Organised crime, people trafficking, piracy, animal disease outbreaks — these are things people don’t talk about every day. But if they happen, people will be demanding the Defence Forces are there as the last line of defence.

“We have worked with other government departments to assess the threats to Ireland that we need a defence infrastructure to deal with. The probability of a conventional military attack on Ireland’s territory is assessed as low, [but] recent events have highlighted the security environment can be volatile and unpredictable.”

The new radar system for the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) would cost up to €10m. Coveney said he will hold discussions with Brendan Howlin, the public expenditure minister, about making the investment in military hardware that is recommended in the new defence plan.

The white paper calls for the purchase of three new naval vessels over the next 10 years, including a frigate with helicopter-landing capability to replace LE Eithne, the flagship. Two naval offshore patrol vessels would cost about €140m, and one frigate upwards of €150m.

Coveney also wants to replace much of the Air Corps fleet over the next decade, including the two Casa maritime patrol planes. He also wants an overhaul of the army’s fleet of armoured personnel carriers, but he declined to say how many vehicles were likely to be replaced over the timeframe covered by the white paper.

Coveney said a new radar system would give better coverage of the Atlantic airspace over which the IAA has responsibility.

Two Russian Tu-95s — known as ‘Bear’ bombers — flew to within 50 nautical miles of the Irish coast on January 28, but the IAA was unaware until alerted by British colleagues.

The white paper will call for the strength of the Reserve Defence Force to be raised to 4,000 from the current 2,200. Coveney hopes to attract a greater range of skills into the RDF including medical, IT and other specialist skills.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/article1577106.ece

Ren2k7 · 07-07-2015 1:19pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Considering we are looking at spending nearly twice as much for the next 3 as we did for the 3 P 60's along with a not so small increase in the Air Corps (if the 295's are right), I can live with it, I mean hell they could have just gone for 3 more OPV's rather than the EPV/Frigate.

We still don't have the budget position that alows (either financially or politically) what we would like to spend, this doesn't seem horrible if the first leaks are right.

The frigate HPV is to be welcomed but it's still a bit disappointing that the two new OPV's aren't in addition to the Peacock replacements which would have been regardless of whether there was a White Paper.

As for 235 replacements wouldn't it be better to go with something in a dedicated maritime patrol role and not something more geared towards military transport? The 235's could still be retained but sent back to Airbus for refit and kept on in a heavy lift capacity.

sparky42 · 07-07-2015 1:26pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The frigate HPV is to be welcomed but it's still a bit disappointing that the two new OPV's aren't in addition to the Peacock replacements which would have been regardless of whether there was a White Paper.

As for 235 replacements wouldn't it be better to go with something in a dedicated maritime patrol role and not something more geared towards military transport? The 235's could still be retained but sent back to Airbus for refit and kept on in a heavy lift capacity.

Sure increase the fleet, along with the personnel numbers would be ideal, though if we were I'd go for 2 OPV's to replace the Peacocks, and 2 "frigates" to give us more depth for operations (like the Med patrol). But again given the past where the Navy has gotten screwed over plenty of times just getting a full fleet replenishment isn't something to object to.

The 295's are fully designed for MPA, what alternative would you suggest? Worn out P-3's, Atlantique's, P-8, or the Japanese MPA (can't remember it's designator)? Airbus has designed the 235's/295's to do MPA if configured and plenty of nations/services use them in that role. Though knowing us, we'll go for the transport version, and then have it fitted with the MPA equipment, just to avoid the "Militarisation" of having the wings configured for weapon stores.

Ren2k7 · 07-07-2015 2:19pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Sure increase the fleet, along with the personnel numbers would be ideal, though if we were I'd go for 2 OPV's to replace the Peacocks, and 2 "frigates" to give us more depth for operations (like the Med patrol). But again given the past where the Navy has gotten screwed over plenty of times just getting a full fleet replenishment isn't something to object to.

The 295's are fully designed for MPA, what alternative would you suggest? Worn out P-3's, Atlantique's, P-8, or the Japanese MPA (can't remember it's designator)? Airbus has designed the 235's/295's to do MPA if configured and plenty of nations/services use them in that role. Though knowing us, we'll go for the transport version, and then have it fitted with the MPA equipment, just to avoid the "Militarisation" of having the wings configured for weapon stores.

Just seems like overkill to be utilising aircraft in a transport configuration for MPA. Though I accept the DoD want to get maximum bang for its buck and maintain aircraft in multiple roles. Hence 235's in both MPA and transport roles.

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Comments