Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Negative_G

It's all about baby steps. You don't just become a fast jet operator over a short period of time.

The next most important step I would envisage for the Air Corps is to deploy a airframe to an overseas mission. The corporate knowledge and experience needs to be acquired over time. Similarly the minister mentioned recently about deploying a vessel to Op Atalanta. A worthy mission to gain that would acquire experience and interoperability with other nations. I would assume the naval service are chomping at the bit but have they the ability to do it without adversely affecting domestic responsibilities? Same argument applies to a casa deployment.

I'm going off topic here so I digress. Unfortunately any project of substantial merit generally requires substantial funding and there will always be something else that is deemed more important.

IrishTrajan

Serbia, Montenegro, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta... All these countries have smaller economies than ours, yet they are active participants in Atalanta, and we're not... God damn it really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

Negative_G

I agree entirely. If it can be done without affecting their duties at home then it should be a no brainer.

I'm sure there are a multitude of logistical, personnel and diplomatic hurdles to be overcome but I've no doubt that it would be grabbed with both hands.

I believe the Maltese had a detachment of troops serving aboard a Dutch vessel in the mission area. Which goes to show how hurdles can be overcome even if you are a 'small player'.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Serbia, Montenegro, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta... All these countries have smaller economies than ours, yet they are active participants in Atalanta, and we're not... God damn it really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

To be fair for at least some of them the contribution has only been a handful of people (kind of like how the UK contributes to the EU mission for the Med by providing 2 Border Patrol officers). It's all a matter of political will, and frankly given the survival state that this and the previous Government has been in I'm not surprised that we haven't involved ourselves.

"Minister, you've cut the deaf/blind payment but you are sending a Warship to Africa!" Cue the OUTRAGE from the public. It's good that they are looking at it now, however if it's anything other than the Rangers I'd be a bit surprised (and if we end up sinking someone you know there will be b***hing):rolleyes::mad:

sparky42

Negative_G wrote: »

I agree entirely. If it can be done without affecting their duties at home then it should be a no brainer.

I'm sure there are a multitude of logistical, personnel and diplomatic hurdles to be overcome but I've no doubt that it would be grabbed with both hands.

I believe the Maltese had a detachment of troops serving aboard a Dutch vessel in the mission area. Which goes to show how hurdles can be overcome even if you are a 'small player'.

Bare in mind, if they were looking at a Naval Vessel from the start, the bloody Asbestos issue with the Peacocks and Eithne might have intervened, the Navy could hardly have sent away a 50/60 when down 3 ships. That's not too say we couldn't have done something else but with only 2 235's I can't see them being released either.

Negative_G

sparky42 wrote: »

Bare in mind, if they were looking at a Naval Vessel from the start, the bloody Asbestos issue with the Peacocks and Eithne might have intervened, the Navy could hardly have sent away a 50/60 when down 3 ships. That's not too say we couldn't have done something else but with only 2 235's I can't see them being released either.

I agree.

My point was that it doesn't have to be a big deployment but even to try and send some officers/SNCOs to accompany a partner nation would provide a suitable platform to build on.

I can't see any of the three proposals happening if I'm honest.

sparky42

Negative_G wrote: »

I agree.

My point was that it doesn't have to be a big deployment but even to try and send some officers/SNCOs to accompany a partner nation would provide a suitable platform to build on.

I can't see any of the three proposals happening if I'm honest.

I disagree, Coveney wouldn't have been so vocal about it if it was just a stunt, certainly the media reports would have been more couched in Public Service language if it was just a trial balloon. He'll look fairly stupid if he stands up in a couple of days and says "we looked but it cost too much so ignore my previous statements" (not saying that can't happen).

My feeling is that it will be some of the ARW sent, that way the Government doesn't have to deal with the tricky "You shot someone" from the Crusties.

Negative_G

sparky42 wrote: »

I disagree, Coveney wouldn't have been so vocal about it if it was just a stunt, certainly the media reports would have been more couched in Public Service language if it was just a trial balloon. He'll look fairly stupid if he stands up in a couple of days and says "we looked but it cost too much so ignore my previous statements" (not saying that can't happen).

How many times have ministers made a suggestion or indeed a promise to do something only to come back and say its not possible for any multitude of reasons?

Have you been living in a cave for the last decade?

Any perceived 'embarrassment' would be short lived and the show would roll on.

sparky42

Negative_G wrote: »

How many times have ministers made a suggestion or indeed a promise to do something only to come back and say its not possible for any multitude of reasons?

Have you been living in a cave for the last decade?

Any perceived 'embarrassment' would be short lived and the show would roll on.

Yes and the overwhelming majority of those are things that the Irish people actually care about, waiting lists, housing, debts etc, whichever Minister has to have an answer because people care about it and it's political capital. Coveney could have stood up and said "at this time we aren't doing Feck all cause we don't give a S**T" and the majority of people wouldn't care/notice. That he laid out the three options suggests that it's something that's been looked at and kicked around before now, why bother unless he was pushing for it?

Jawgap

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Serbia, Montenegro, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta... All these countries have smaller economies than ours, yet they are active participants in Atalanta, and we're not... God damn it really puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

Not really - they all have completely different security situations to ours.

Susandublin

Thought we has 2 Garda helicopters - what more do we need!
That and our good sense of humour and our Beitish buddies will keep us safe.

Leonidas BL

Horse84 wrote: »

George hook is going to be doing a piece on the air corps now on newstalk

So how did it go?

Morpheus

was ok

valid case for improving air defences was made, that was about it.

George mostly agreed with him

Negative_G

Morpheus wrote: »

was ok

valid case for improving air defences was made, that was about it.

George mostly agreed with him

It was a poor interview truth be told. It was a missed opportunity to really dive into the topic but it was mostly superficial rubbish.

Instead of jokingly referring to the Cessna's when asked what do the Air Corps have, he could have discussed why the last jets we had were sold and why there is currently no political will to acquire any more, I.e. the white paper.

Anyway, for those that missed it you can listen to it here:

http://www.newstalk.com/player/shows/The_Right_Hook/9/16385/11th_February_2015_-_The_Right_Hook_Part_3

Starts around 8 mins or so.

sparky42

Negative_G wrote: »

It was a poor interview truth be told. It was a missed opportunity to really dive into the topic but it was mostly superficial rubbish.

Instead of jokingly referring to the Cessna's when asked what do the Air Corps have, he could have discussed why the last jets we had were sold and why there is currently no political will to acquire any more, I.e. the white paper.

Anyway, for those that missed it you can listen to it here:

http://www.newstalk.com/player/shows/The_Right_Hook/9/16385/11th_February_2015_-_The_Right_Hook_Part_3

Starts around 8 mins or so.

It's not like the Fouga's would have been able to do much more than the PC9's. At no point have we invested the money to have anything close to air control/patrol capability.

Negative_G

sparky42 wrote: »

It's not like the Fouga's would have been able to do much more than the PC9's. At no point have we invested the money to have anything close to air control/patrol capability.

I never said they would/could.

My point was that a long term decision was made to decommission two aircraft types and replace them with the PC-9M.

This is at the core of the issue. Unless there is a political mandate to improve air defence then nothing will happen.

Markcheese

I suppose their is an argument that we should have a basic jet trainer - so at least we're another step along the road should we need to invest in something faster - but if we go down that road how much what would we need as an absute minimum - specialized ground radar- top cover aircraft - at the moment we're not a target in ourselves should we spend a hell of a lot (in terms of our spending) for very little capability -

Leonidas BL

I've been meaning to throw this up in the air and ill probably get stung for it.

How about a private security firm to provide air policing???

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I've been meaning to throw this up in the air and ill probably get stung for it.

How about a private security firm to provide air policing???

Are there even firms that do that? Even so could you imagine if you had a situation with a Shoot down required? Chaos and Mayhem.

Leonidas BL

sparky42 wrote: »

Are there even firms that do that? Even so could you imagine if you had a situation with a Shoot down required? Chaos and Mayhem.

Im not sure if there is now but there is private firms that act as aggressor squadrons. Also I think Ethiopia hired its fighter jets, pilots and mechanics.

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Im not sure if there is now but there is private firms that act as aggressor squadrons. Also I think Ethiopia hired its fighter jets, pilots and mechanics.

Aggressor training is a lot different to allowing a private firm have air to air weapons and potentially the authority to shot down a passenger plane. I'd class that as a large step beyond the PMC's that we've seen before.

Leonidas BL

sparky42 wrote: »

Aggressor training is a lot different to allowing a private firm have air to air weapons and potentially the authority to shot down a passenger plane. I'd class that as a large step beyond the PMC's that we've seen before.

Whats so different about it compared to any other type of armed private security around the world. The guns aren't just for show ya know! If something needed to be shot down they'd be just as qualified as any to do it...

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Whats so different about it compared to any other type of armed private security around the world. The guns aren't just for show ya know! If something needed to be shot down they'd be just as qualified as any to do it...

You don't think there's a difference between a guy shooting some people and a fighter downing a Passenger air liner? What Private company wants the tag line of "yeah we killed hundreds of people!", or deal with the aftermath (say shooting down a US airliner, going to have repercussions). Not too mention would you trust a PMC with an action that could potentially piss off a Nuclear power? If you had a private firm doing it would you trust that somebody else hadn't paid them more to allow them to continue their actions?

Leonidas BL

sparky42 wrote: »

You don't think there's a difference between a guy shooting some people and a fighter downing a Passenger air liner? What Private company wants the tag line of "yeah we killed hundreds of people!", or deal with the aftermath (say shooting down a US airliner, going to have repercussions). Not too mention would you trust a PMC with an action that could potentially piss off a Nuclear power? If you had a private firm doing it would you trust that somebody else hadn't paid them more to allow them to continue their actions?

What about the bomber that flew through our area of control only a few weeks ago??? Are passenger airlines such a big threat?
The gob****es that run this country are going to by cheap jets armed with rockets and fob them off to the Irish public, and they'll believe it.

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

What about the bomber that flew through our area of control only a few weeks ago??? Are passenger airlines such a big threat?
The gob****es that run this country are going to by cheap jets armed with rockets and fob them off to the Irish public, and they'll believe it.

Might point about passenger liners is what happens in the case of a 9/11 style attack (and yes I know it's remote), is a private company going to make the call on shooting down such an aircraft in that situation (and should it). In the case of the Bear patrols, what happens if you had a collision (even without shooting anyone), does the PMC have to explain to Russia what happened, or does the Irish State (at which point why do it privately?).

Nobody is likely to buy light fighters in Ireland and that's the reality we live with as the public don't care, giving it to some sort of private firm doesn't solve the issue.

IrishTrajan

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Whats so different about it compared to any other type of armed private security around the world. The guns aren't just for show ya know! If something needed to be shot down they'd be just as qualified as any to do it...

Because, with a PMC, you can regulate them and they won't cause massive casualties with a single mistake. If you give them an airforce, a single feck up could cost hundreds of lives and enormous repercussions. It simply isn't worth the risk. The name "Blackwater" (also known as "Academi") should explain why you don't want to give private corporations too much power.


On a light hearted note:

https: //www yahoo com/ finance /news /russia-claims-early-stages-developing-220235419 html

Russia intends to build Nimitz-class Carriers... By the time they actually get them built and deployed (if they ever do), they'll be made obsolete by the Ford-class Carrier. Russia never fails to amuse.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

On a light hearted note:

https: //www yahoo com/ finance /news /russia-claims-early-stages-developing-220235419 html

Russia intends to build Nimitz-class Carriers... By the time they actually get them built and deployed (if they ever do), they'll be made obsolete by the Ford-class Carrier. Russia never fails to amuse.

Ah let's be honest, pretty much every year the Russians put out a PR Fluff piece like this. In reality their ship building rates are terrible and at the moment they are barely replacing Frigates and failing to replace their SSN's. Most likely the Cruisers will not be replaced nor will these carriers happen (an aside, the Ukrainian ship building industry still supported Russian building with some tech/hardware not likely to happen now).

IrishTrajan

I know, I would like for them to actually build them though. Nothing better to watch than Russia-China vying with U.S.-Japanese-Indian power in the Pacific/South China Sea.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I know, I would like for them to actually build them though. Nothing better to watch than Russia-China vying with U.S.-Japanese-Indian power in the Pacific/South China Sea.

Even if they did build them, I don't see them changing their doctrine from the Soviet style. I mean the "patrols" they've sent out in the last few years have been accompanied by tugs;).

The Chinese will over the coming decades develop Carrier's, don't see Japan moving beyond their "Through deck Cruisers", India needs to sort out it's systemic corruption issues first.

seanaway

Irish Indo is clearly well ahead of the lot of us.

We* DO* have jets after all.

Well done the Indo for making eejits of everyone here....


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/injured-crew-member-stranded-aboard-russian-fishing-vessel-off-irish-coast-30990980.html#comments