Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

Parsley

astraboy wrote:

Certain extreimist elements see anyone engaging in this sort of society as an enemy. Madrid and London, cities not far from where we are, have suffered at the hands of people with those sort of views recently. So wave your hands claiming neturallity all you want but I would perfer to have a well equipped military that could take control of a such situations if they arrise.

A well equipped army wouldn't help a situation like in Madrid or London. It's good emergency services and hospitals you need for that. And in any case, as long as we don't invade anyone, the situation should never arise...

BrianD

astraboy wrote:

Madrid and London, cities not far from where we are, have suffered at the hands of people with those sort of views recently. So wave your hands claiming neturallity all you want but I would perfer to have a well equipped military that could take control of a such situations if they arrise.

Both the UK and Spain are Nato members and have large standing armies and modern airforces. Despite this they were unable to prevent the incidents that happened. In fact, the word useless comes to mind. This underlines the fact that buying a handful of state of the art fighter jets would neither stop a military invasion or a terrorist attack.

You are correct in stating that we are 'kidding' ourselves in respect to being a neutral nation. The fact is that faced with the prospect of joining the UK as a military ally we have decided to opt out primarily because of the Northern Ireland issue. The reality is that NATO have protected our neutrality since WW2 so why change the status quo?

Mick86

BrianD wrote:

The reality is that NATO have protected our neutrality since WW2 so why change the status quo?

Because we purport to be a sovereign nation and if we decide that sovereignty may need defending at some stage then it behoves us to take full responsibility for that defence. In this day and age unilateral defence is economic suicide. So the obvious solution is join NATO.

babybundy

will people please realise you can not stop a suicide bomber the only chance is to be able have some one put a bullet in them just before they squise the trigger and hope you dont set it of with the round so unfortunatlly THERE IS NO DEFENCE TO A SUICIDE BOMBER

OS119

and back on thread...

creating, from scratch, an integrated AirDefence system, seems to me very low on the realistic priorities of the Irish Defence Forces. there are very good arguments to be made about soveriegnty and the likelyhood of the closest neighbour being able to come to Irelands defence in the event of a 9/11-type experience, however, the likelyhood of such an occurence is small while the costs of buying such a system are vast.

the time between ATC noticing that an AC is behaving strangely, to scrambling a QRA, to finding the AC, challenging it, getting permission to shootdown what could be a perfectly innocent airliner to actually firing on it without the wreakage falling on Central Dublin is so short that that only a continously airborne CAP could do it. and that my friends, is very expensive.

you might get away with an F-16 or Grippen with minimal fuel sitting on the runway at Baldonell, but it would require a very short chain of command, you'd have very frequent false alarms and you'd eventually get mistakes as the QRA would have so much catching up to do that BVR ROE would have to be used.

F-16 with AMRAAM and AIM-9X sat on the runway at 2 minutes QRA 24/7 with two other AC on 5 and 10 minute QRA, controlled by military Air Search Radar and with constant secure comms to ATC, DoD, DoD and Bertie? not cheap. Billions in start up costs, 5 million to train each pilot, the QRA alone would require 6 airframes, flight currency/weapons training and maintainence would require another 18 just to keep the three QRA AC on line. if you've got troops in Liberia or Lebanon you'll want to protect them with your shiny new F-16Blk 52's, so you'll need say another half a dozen and to maintain that commitment you'll need yet more AC for currency/weapons training as well as to increase the number of pilots trained on Type. you'll also need a replacement pool - typically 25% of fast jets are written off over a 20 year period.

so to keep 3 F-16's on QRA at Baldonell and 6 in Cyprus (for instance) you'll need 50 or so airframes and maybe 75 pilots trained and current on type - and to stay current each pilot will need 35 - 45 flying hours per month and at least one AMRAAM launch per year - at US $1 million a shot.

you'll also need a brand new military air search radar network. and a minumum of two operational bases - both with full maintainence facilities and Hardened Aircraft Shelters (at about $2million ago, each holds two AC).

the going rate for an airframe+spares+pilot training+engineer/service training+initial weapons fit+mid life upgrade+all the ground equipment needed to run an aircraft type is currently about US$60million per airframe. you can slim that down (a bit) by doing your own training as the type comes fully into service.

at minimum that comes to US$3billion in start up costs plus, say, US$750Million per year in keeping 50 AC in the Air and 75 pilots current.

spend the cash on helicopters, proper ones like Chinook not civvy choppers painted green, a 10,000 ton MRV/LPD with utility and attack helicopter operations and room for a mechanized Battalion group with Armour, Engineers, Artillery, Logistics and Medical Support.

and do things with it.

then you nearest neighbour might put your AD slightly higher up his list of priorities.

astraboy

OS119 wrote:

at minimum that comes to US$3billion in start up costs plus, say, US$750Million per year in keeping 50 AC in the Air and 75 pilots current.

spend the cash on helicopters, proper ones like Chinook not civvy choppers painted green, a 10,000 ton MRV/LPD with utility and attack helicopter operations and room for a mechanized Battalion group with Armour, Engineers, Artillery, Logistics and Medical Support.

and do things with it.

then you nearest neighbour might put your AD slightly higher up his list of priorities.

Great to see it up in facts and figures. Being realistic we would not have the need for such expense or justify 3Billion euro expense to upgrade the air corps to jet standard. I know you are using F-16's as an example, surley there is an alternative suited to a small country such as Ireland.

Agree about the helicopters, we would get great value for money out of these over a 15/20 year life span.

cushtac

OS119 wrote:

at minimum that comes to US$3billion in start up costs plus, say, US$750Million per year in keeping 50 AC in the Air and 75 pilots current.

spend the cash on helicopters, proper ones like Chinook not civvy choppers painted green, a 10,000 ton MRV/LPD with utility and attack helicopter operations and room for a mechanized Battalion group with Armour, Engineers, Artillery, Logistics and Medical Support.

and do things with it.

Someone speaking sense, I wonder how long this will last...

OS119

astraboy wrote:

I know you are using F-16's as an example, surley there is an alternative suited to a small country such as Ireland.

F-16Blk52 and Grippen are much of a muchness, Grippen being marginally more air to air and point defence orientated, F-16 rather more multi-role. both could do the job required.

i used F-16 as a cost model because thats the AC with a more established/published cost base for what would in effect be an Air Force built from scratch.

given the requirement - a fighter capable of very quick interceptions, BVRAAM, and uber-reliability - the F-16 and Grippen are the cheapest available. a Hawk-type AC just doesn't have the performance to make an intercept of the type required, it would get there to fly CAP over the hole in the ground. you could buy a non-NATO AC for less, but you couldn't operate it effectively in a European environment - Data-Link systems wouldn't talk to each other, refueling and weapon systems wouldn't match and you would always face the problem of ensuring that EU/NATO soldiers on the ground could differentiate between your SU-30's and those of whichever African/Middle Eastern hellhole you're err.... 'peacekeeping' in.

E2A: the QRA nature of the tasking means that you couldn't really used second hand AC. European QRA do a fearful amount of scrambles and very fast 'brakes off to 30,000ft' zoom climbs, relatively few flying hours but considerably more take-offs and landings than would be the average. such things are not kind to airframes.

Turkey

Errr, Coast guard is run by the dept of the marine, not transport. The IAC were very good at running SAR despite the governments reluctance to spend anything remotely resembling money on it....
The 2 D2's were supposed to be 15 Lynxes but our successive governments are scum who constantly bow to left wing gender-confused pillocks who seen to have a lot to say about stuff despite having neither knowledge or ability.
As for air defence, yes we should have it, yes we can easily afford it,but it cannot be put in place overnight, the purchase and operation of the PC-9's is only the first step.........I hope.
IMHO, choices are the Gripen, the F/A/T-50, the Jaguar International, or the F-16, and maybe the F-18[B?]
But as some of the posters who do know what they are talking about there are a number of things to be done first: we should be operating sufficient troop helicopters to be able to take them abroad, [about 40] we have insufficient APC's and armed recon vehicles.
Incidently HEMS is not necessarily a military function, and probably should be passed on to Dublin Fire Brigade leaving military stuff to the military.

Steyr

Well said Turkey but EIME needs alot of work to make space for all those Heli's and Aircraft or perhaps de-centralise them from Baldonnel to places like EICM,EISG,EINN,EICK and they could operate with assosicated Army/Navy/RDF elements in those Brigade locations?

therecklessone

Steyr wrote:

Well said Turkey

Turkey wrote:

our successive governments are scum who constantly bow to left wing gender-confused pillocks who seen to have a lot to say about stuff despite having neither knowledge or ability.

Childish rant more like.

babybundy

Turkey wrote:

we have insufficient APC's and armed recon vehicles.
.

i have one word to say to that just to prove you right........................................... scorpian:D

Steyr

babybundy wrote:

i have one word to say to that just to prove you right........................................... scorpian:D

Scorpion:rolleyes: Its a good shoot and scoot vehicle and quick recon thats why the Brits still use them.

jmayo

Turkey .... I take exception to fact that HEMS should be Dublin Fire Brigade.
There is more to Ireland than Dublin you know???
There should be facilities in every area and not just Dublin.
Actually they are more needed outside the pale.

We do not need fighter aricraft, they would be nice to have to make us feel important and macho, but what would we do with them?
Who would we stop, where is the threat?

And we are not Switzerland, Austria, Sweden or even Finland.
They have proper economies (not based on cheap credit and buying property) that have defense related industries.
They have all military histories together with military hardware sales and two of those have directly been in two wars over last century.
Switzerland and Sweden were technically neutral in WWII, but that was really because they were more useful to Germany providing war materials and money laundering facilities than if they were invaded.

Also it is no use having fighter aircraft without all the ancilliary services.
You need the maintenance and backup facilities, you need the missilies to actually use from your fighter.
What about then having awacs capabilities as a means of detecting the invaders ?
These are all extra costs that people forget, they just see the fact that a F18 costs x millions and not all the other costs that goes with it.

Anway look at it this way, even if the government decided to plough loads of money into the AC, watch what would happen.
They would first hire a few hundred civil servants for the department of defense. Then they would extend the administration and management staff/ranks within the aircorp.
Finally you would be left enough money for 3 trained pilots and one technician and maybe half an aircraft.

Parsley

Realistically, the most an Irish government- beleagured with the demands for cash for the health service, roads, schools and so forth- would pay for would be for six to twelve aircraft. Which is all we would need anyway, given that the requirement is really for a token ability to intercept civil aircraft in difficullty or suspected of being hijacked and perhaps for air support on UN missions abroad. Even thinking about anything more than that is pointless fantasy, because this government is never, ever, going to spend more than two or three hundred million on this kind of thing. Ever.

Helicopters are the expensive equipment we really need- they are vital for UN ops, and highly practical at home. Their uses range from disaster response, to air ambulance, to SAR to helping deal with criminal gangs. They are also pretty much the only fancy equipment that would possibly be of any use in combating 'terrorists'.

Turkey

Err, jmayo sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I only used DFB as an example of a provider,
I meant all the fire brigades in the country, jointly involved in running it or using the service. After all we don't depend on the military to provide surface ambo' transport.
As for needing fighter aircrafts, there is no threat, there does'ent have to be,
we are allegedly an independent nation, we are obliged to defend ourselves, there is no point in crying when something does go pear shaped, or asking that a possible enemy wait the 3 years we would need to put air defence in place, but your point is valid, IMHO.
You are right about us not being Sweden, Switzerland, ect, they are neutral, we are not , we never have been either, no matter what successive governments have said. Don't take my word for it, look up the Geneva convention on the subject.
As for your point about the ancillary services, yes you are right , all part of the package, I sort of included that, stuffed into one line some where[but it cannot be put in place overnight, the purchase and operation of the PC-9's is only the first step.........I hope.] lasyness on my part I suppose.
BTw , we already have the AWAC's
As for your last paragraph, regretfully you are probably right, but we can but hope.
Steyr [delightful weapon BTW] and Babybundy [do I know you from somewhere?] thanks for your support.
therecklessone, I am long past childishness, how about adding something to the debate, if you can?

therecklessone

Turkey wrote:

therecklessone, I am long past childishness

Actions speak louder than words.

Turkey wrote:

how about adding something to the debate, if you can?

How about you read the entire thread?

Turkey

So what was childish?
If you disagree with my assessment of our politicians then say so, or even better, point me to the error of my ways, but I assure you childishness is long in my past, being entitled to an opinion, no matter how much it might upset you is still my right , even if you do not agree...

And Yeah I have read the entire thread............

jmayo

Turkey, no worries I just get p***ed off that everything always seems to revolve around Dublin, even though I now live near enough to it.
I think it would hve to be join effort between ambulance providers, coast guard (SAR) and air corp to provide medivac operations.
Each would bring something to the party.
Try and not involve HSE or whole thing would end up like PPARS and get nowhere.
The greater need is outside the capital, including Leinster. Take yesterday car accidents as a prime example.

I don't see future wars operating like any of the previous European conflicts.
In the future the possible major reasons for war may become energy and water, all you need to do is take a look at the state of some countries water reserves. Where that leaves Ireland I am not sure.

Technically Sweden and Switzerland are neutral but looking at the performance in WWII that was a joke.
Switzerland handled Germany's stolen ill gotten gains and provide precision war machinery. Sweden provided Germany with mineral resources.
Ok they claim it was better to partially cooperate rather than be invaded.
Both have armanents industries to look after and also history of national service.

The ancillary services add up to a hell of a lot. We are talking billions here if you include the aircraft themselves.
Training frontline fighter pilots costs millions in itself. Then do we maintain them ourselves or do we farm it out to RAF or someone, which would tie us to usng similar aircraft to them.
Other option is as part of NATO or European Army we receive cheaper aircraft etc form nice benefactor.
That could have been possible in cold war but today can't se it happening.
Maybe if we were next door to middel east we could swing it.

For air based radar are you talking about CASAs ?
They do not have the range I would have thought and that leads me to air tankers.
Ideally if we were to patrol to outer limits of our territorial waters we would need airtankers, correct me if I am wrong here?

I think we need to concentrate on having highly mobile air based troops, meaning lots of expenditure on helicopters both medium/heavy lift troop carrying and fast attack type helis. I am not necessarily talking about Apaches for this role, that might be a bit of overkill.
Also it would mean that some of these troops could be integrated into rapid reaction forces in UN missions or future European army missions.

Although looking at the UN nothing they do is rapid, especially if involving Africa (Rwana, Dafur, Uganda, Somalia) or Bosnia, Lebannon 2006 to name but a few of it's illustrious achievemnets. But that is a different debate.
Sorry off on rant again.....

Turkey

jmayo
There is nothing I can disagree with in your last post, sorta ruins the debate thing does it not?:)
With the tanker thing, it will have to be considered in the future, I think.
If the Air Corps had kept SAR with the canceled S-92's then it would have seriously multiplied their capacity. If they go with the interceptor route as I think they may have a long term plan to do then it would have to be part of the package,thats just another can of worms ready for the tin opener.
As for Sweden and Switzerland's neutrality, I could offer a heap of [probably way over simplified] theory but it will have to wait to another time.........