Shiny New Stuff!!

cyrusdvirus

So, here we are. Santa is coming. What do we have on the money and manpower no object wishlist for the PDF??

AlmightyCushion

A couple of hundred nukes. Just to be on the safe side.

Zaph

Tanks - big ones and lots of them! No idea why we'd need them, but they always seem to be crowd pleasers.

cyrusdvirus

Couple of Iowa Class Battleships will do me. I knwo that they're dated now at this stage, and any navy worth it's salt wants Carriers...... But the Iowa's are sexy

uptherebels

persuade the americans to sell us a few a-10's or get some hercs

BostonB

A death star. Just for the uniforms.

Mick86

An Airborne Division.:cool:

ChapOfDRyans

in all joking aside what do you think the pdf are in need of maybe a couple of tanks etc

Hagar

Isreali women soldiers would be nice.

uptherebels

attack helicopters, stealth fighters those"little birds" with rocket pods a whole carrier group and ( i thought that these were made up for metal gear solid but there real) Davy crocketts which are nukes made to be fired from recoiless rifles from the 50's but id say still effective

Victor

Enough helicopters to go around - after all, there are 33 ministers and junior ministers.

cyrusdvirus

http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/toys-games/super-toys/paintball-panzer/index.html

We can get an armoured division of these!!!!!

arybvtcw0eolkf

Hagar wrote: »

Isreali women soldiers would be nice.

I have one of those

Steyr

1. About 6 more CASA's.
2. Lose MATS.
3. 30 HH60G PaveHawks.
4. Open Bal to Commerical Traffic ( after major work obviously ) to increase Military Funds ( landing fees etc ).
5. 40 F15E Strike Eagles.
6. 10 KC135 Extender tankers.
7. 6 LA Class Submarines.
8. 60 M1A1 Abrams for the Army.
9. Reserve to be brought up to PDF standards ASAP And paid ( change in Gov legislation to allow time off no questions asked ).
10. Naval Service to be made up of US Type Frigates with Seahawks.
11. National Service ( Works for Germany ).


:eek::D

Hagar

Now that's a shopping list...

Signs cheque...

cyrusdvirus

<Sticks pedantic pat hat firmly on head>

1. About 6 more CASA's.

Totally Agree

2. Lose MATS.

Totally Agree

3. 30 HH60G PaveHawks.

Totally Agree

4. Open Bal to Commerical Traffic ( after major work obviously ) to increase Military Funds ( landing fees etc ).

Would increased funds not be eaten up by increased security costs?

5. 40 F15E Strike Eagles.

You have a thing for the Eagle, don't ya!!
What about the Raptor though? maybe go for 2 squadrons of each? More balanced force.

5.5. An AWACS Bird. Or 2. Or enough to keep a couple up on western seaboard and 1 on eastern seaboard. Logistically I'd say 9 would be needed to meet these requirements.
Is there not an awacs version of the 767 in development?

6. 10 KC135 Extender tankers.

KC10. Newer airframe, newer design, lower costs, higher tanking capability.
AFAIK the 767 is being developed for this role aswell

{Waves pedantic pat hat(And the Extender is the KC10... the KC135 is the Stratotanker)}

7. 6 LA Class Submarines.

Why not Virginia Class? again, newer, lower manpower costs. Designed with littoral actions in mind too.

8. 60 M1A1 Abrams for the Army.

Current Variant is the M1A2, which is taking into considerations battle experience, (urban fighting)

9. Reserve to be brought up to PDF standards ASAP And paid ( change in Gov legislation to allow time off no questions asked ).

Agree Totally

10. Naval Service to be made up of US Type Frigates with Seahawks.

Here i blow my shiny new stuff arguments from the previous points completely out of the water ( no pun intended), but why not Spruance Class ships? More versatile design.

11. National Service ( Works for Germany ).

Agree

Steyr

gatecrash wrote: »

What about the Raptor though? maybe go for 2 squadrons of each? More balanced force.

Wouldnt mind except the US Govt have said under no circumstance will the F22 ever be sold to a Foreign Nation NATO or otherwise. And the F15E because she is adept at both AA and AG condsidering all other Eagle variants were built with the motto and i quote the USAF "Not a pound for air to ground".

Manic Moran

Don't see much need for tankers.

gatecrash wrote: »

Why not Virginia Class? again, newer, lower manpower costs. Designed with littoral actions in mind too.

Go with the diesel boats.

Current Variant is the M1A2, which is taking into considerations battle experience, (urban fighting)

85% of the US Army is M1A1 AIM with that proportion staying steady for the forseeable future. The TUSK upgrade (Urban warfare) can be applied to either variant. Just be sure to buy the Aussie mods with the new sight and running water.

Here i blow my shiny new stuff arguments from the previous points completely out of the water ( no pun intended), but why not Spruance Class ships? More versatile design.

Reality check here. Raptors, Nuclear submarines and tanks are fine, but a Spruance is too expensive to run compared to something like the Aussie-modified Perry class.

NTM

cyrusdvirus

Manic Moran wrote: »

Reality check here. Raptors, Nuclear submarines and tanks are fine, but a Spruance is too expensive to run compared to something like the Aussie-modified Perry class.
NTM

Awww come on MM, I did say money and manpower no object!!!;)

The Spruance class hull is the basis of 3 successfull designs, the Spruances themselves, the Kidds (I know they were taken over by the USN rather than ordered but still) and the Ticonderoga class cruisers. There is also plenty of space for upgrades and new weapon technology. And the Improved Spruances can carry the Tomahawk, which gives a much longer range punch

Manic Moran

Well, in that case, why not go for a Burke/Kongo? The Spruances have a very limited anti-air capability.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just be sure to buy the Aussie mods with the new sight and running water.

Shower and toilet???? Wow!

cyrusdvirus

Do the Burke and Kongo class ships not have a heavier leaning towards being an anti air platform?

Spruances are limited in the Anti Air mode fair enough, but the hull itself has so much open space and room for expansion that it could easily be modified to take this into consideration. I feel the Spruance are a very well rounded design. And while this means that their capabilities are not excellent in any one area, they are capable of sticking their oar in in all areas.

Manic Moran

Spruances can't do anything which Burkes can't, and indeed, Burkes have larger magazines. There is a major difference in AAW capability, but the Burkes haven't done so at the cost of ASuW or ASW. Just at a cost of $$.

NTM

cyrusdvirus

Grrrr...... Just went a looking to try and find a way to refute those arguments...........and failed!

Still like the Spruance design though!! Looks nicer than a Burke class.

OS119

gatecrash wrote: »

So, here we are. Santa is coming. What do we have on the money and manpower no object wishlist for the PDF??

NS: two 20,000 ton 'Ocean' class LPH/D, six 3,000 ton 'super OPV's' to support the LPH/D's (NGS, AAW, ASuW), and 10 OPV/IPV to maintain control of Irish waters.

IAC: sixteen C-130J, access to NATO C-17 and contracted AN-124, 24 CH-47D (Heavy lift), 24 EC-725 Cougar (Medium lift), 24 UH-72 Lakota/EC-145 (Light Utility), 6 CASA-235 maritime patrol and ISTAR aircraft and heavy investment in UAV's - both shipboard and land based - to support overseas operations and maritime patrol of the NE Atlantic. all aircraft and crews to be deployable overseas and the helicopters and UAV's to be trained to operate from the NS LPH/D's and smaller vessels as neccesary.

Army: the ability to continuously maintain a full, NATO standard infantry battle group (with Armoured support, Artillery, Engineers, Signals, Medical Support and IAC Helicopter support) on overseas operations on any task upto and including high-intensity warfighting, the ability to additionally deploy two fully mobile infantry companies with Mortar, ATGW, MANPADS and HMG to either act in support of the Irish Battle Group or to act in a Spearhead role elsewhere, and the ability to act in support to the Civil Power with Counter-Terrorist and bomb disposal forces as required.

lard arses, deaf people or war dodgers need not apply.

segaBOY

Steyr wrote: »

11. National Service ( Works for Germany ).

A. Some republicans are still opposed to the idea of a "Free State Army" aka the current Irish Army, they would not take it lying down

B. Let history repeat itself? Didn't the Brits try to bring that in in the turn of the last century and get serious hassle from the Irish people?

I do think it's a good idea though just don't think it'd work here tbh

Oh and more ships please I can still count 8 on my two hands!

fish-head

segaBOY wrote: »

B. Let history repeat itself? Didn't the Brits try to bring that in in the turn of the last century and get serious hassle from the Irish people?

Hahaha... serious hassle. What a thoroughly Irish way of putting it!

Steyr

segaBOY wrote: »

A. Some republicans are still opposed to the idea of a "Free State Army" aka the current Irish Army, they would not take it lying down

They know where the door is and dont let it hit them twats on the way out..

cyrusdvirus

Steyr wrote: »

They know where the door is and dont let it hit them twats on the way out..

That's the door at the back or the C-117 (which we'll buy as well, purely for this purpose) at 15000ft, and no parachutes, right?

Steyr

gatecrash wrote: »

That's the door at the back or the C-117 (which we'll buy as well, purely for this purpose) at 15000ft, and no parachutes, right?

50,000FT AGL just tell them its a HALO jump..

segaBOY

Steyr wrote: »

They know where the door is and dont let it hit them twats on the way out..

Forcing conscription on someone who's political view would bitterly oppose it simply wouldn't work, yes I think it's a good idea but no I don't think it would work in Ireland.

Furthermore, with free education those going to college are not going to want to take a year or two out of their education so easily