Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

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

Eh, so they forgot to say it was the Government Jet doing the Top Cover this time, they've done it before when needed.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

Eh, so they forgot to say it was the Government Jet doing the Top Cover this time, they've done it before when needed.

Plus the photo used with the article is the wrong heli - ICG helis are not golf registered, and are not AW-139s.

Typical feckin' Indo - too lazy to even grab a photo of the proper aircraft from even the ICG's Facebook page.

IrishTrajan

I'm quite curious as to how people here would increase the capacity of the Defence Forces. Now, for an exercise in futility...

Here's the scenario:

You are the Minister for Defence, in 2025. After Russia's close-blows with NATO, and with Russian fly-bys occuring regularly near Irish airspace, the Irish Government have decided to increase their defence budget to 2% of GDP (we'll use today's economic size, rather than projected). They have tasked you with drafting the White Paper on Defence, for the years 2025-2035. For those who aren't arsed looking it up: The Defence Budget would come out at €36 billion (keep in mind, at the current rate, around €600 million is spent on wages/pensions and such, if I recall, which works out at €60,000 per head, so every soldier you recruit will increase your costs by 60,000 [unlikely, I know, but I lack the actual expenditure for how much goes to wages, and how much goes to pensions]).

Choose which branch gets how much, what their responsibilities are, and what equipment they will procure to secure that goal.

Optional: Heck, to make it more fun, let's account for the nationalist population growth in Northern Ireland; the unionist organizations have begun a terror campaign to block nationalist movements to rejoin the Republic.


Have fun.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I'm quite curious as to how people here would increase the capacity of the Defence Forces. Now, for an exercise in futility...

Here's the scenario:

You are the Minister for Defence, in 2025. After Russia's close-blows with NATO, and with Russian fly-bys occuring regularly near Irish airspace, the Irish Government have decided to increase their defence budget to 2% of GDP (we'll use today's economic size, rather than projected). They have tasked you with drafting the White Paper on Defence, for the years 2025-2035. For those who aren't arsed looking it up: The Defence Budget would come out at €36 billion (keep in mind, at the current rate, around €600 million is spent on wages/pensions and such, if I recall, which works out at €60,000 per head, so every soldier you recruit will increase your costs by 60,000 [unlikely, I know, but I lack the actual expenditure for how much goes to wages, and how much goes to pensions]).

Choose which branch gets how much, what their responsibilities are, and what equipment they will procure to secure that goal.

Optional: Heck, to make it more fun, let's account for the nationalist population growth in Northern Ireland; the unionist organizations have begun a terror campaign to block nationalist movements to rejoin the Republic.
Have fun.

Have you missed a decimal point there? Cause €36 billion puts us in the top 15 spenders based of current budgets (and no matter how you do the maths we aren't in the G20)

IrishTrajan

No, it was adjusted for the 10-year plan. The way most countries plan their Defence Reviews. €3.6 billion per year, over 10 years = €36 billion.

And what are you doing up at 4 am?

roundymac

Sean O Riordon had an excellent article on the Examiner during the week about about the Russian Tu 95s that flew through Irish airspace and what we can/should be able to do about it. In today's (sat) letter page is a letter stating that no money should be spent buying jets, it should be spent on education and health. I'd say the russkies could drop a couple of nukes on us and people would still come out with the same arguments.

IrishTrajan

roundymac wrote: »

Sean O Riordon had an excellent article on the Examiner during the week about about the Russian Tu 95s that flew through Irish airspace and what we can/should be able to do about it. In today's (sat) letter page is a letter stating that no money should be spent buying jets, it should be spent on education and health. I'd say the russkies could drop a couple of nukes on us and people would still come out with the same arguments.

Jesus Christ this country is god damned infuriating at times. THE ENTIRE DEFENCE BUDGET WOULDN'T LAST A MONTH IF YOU DROPPED IT INTO THE HSE.

Sometimes I just wish something would happen, like Russia's Tu-95 had collided in midair with an Irish plane. It's going to take something tremendous like that to get people thinking about our defence, and even then people will argue against it.

Sometimes I think the Right Wing is the only logical group, and most of them are inbred neo-Nazis whose IQ is lower than the square root of 9.

mister gullible

[
Sometimes I think the Right Wing is the only logical group, and most of them are inbred neo-Nazis whose IQ is lower than the square root of 9.[/QUOTE]

4

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Jesus Christ this country is god damned infuriating at times. THE ENTIRE DEFENCE BUDGET WOULDN'T LAST A MONTH IF YOU DROPPED IT INTO THE HSE.

Sometimes I just wish something would happen, like Russia's Tu-95 had collided in midair with an Irish plane. It's going to take something tremendous like that to get people thinking about our defence, and even then people will argue against it.

Sometimes I think the Right Wing is the only logical group, and most of them are inbred neo-Nazis whose IQ is lower than the square root of 9.

I doubt even that would change people's opinions sadly. Hell the Cold War didn't exactly make us take defence seriously why would this:rolleyes::mad:

Silvera

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Sometimes I just wish something would happen, like Russia's Tu-95 had collided in midair with an Irish plane.

So you are wishing for people to die?! ...Not very nice, to say the least!

Dont get me wrong, I too wish that the Air Corps was better equipped, but not at the expense of such human tragedy.

IrishTrajan

Silvera wrote: »

So you are wishing for people to die?! ...Not very nice, to say the least!

Dont get me wrong, I too wish that the Air Corps was better equipped, but not at the expense of such human tragedy.

Because people are assholes, and if they don't care about the value of human life enough to spend more than a pittance sum on the Air Corps, then why would I?

Edit:

Egypt bought 24 Rafales from the French, and are utilizing their F16s in bombing strikes on ISIS in Libya, in retaliation for the murder of 21 Egyptians.

Silvera

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Because people are assholes, and if they don't care about the value of human life enough to spend more than a pittance sum on the Air Corps, then why would I?

Edit:

Egypt bought 24 Rafales from the French, and are utilizing their F16s in bombing strikes on ISIS in Libya, in retaliation for the murder of 21 Egyptians.

Ookaay...so you are advocating that people should die in order for the Air Corps to be better equipped in order for people not to die?!?
I'm stepping away from this discussion, too off-the-wall for me.

IrishTrajan

Silvera wrote: »

Ookaay...so you are advocating that people should die in order for the Air Corps to be better equipped in order for people not to die?!?
I'm stepping away from this discussion, too off-the-wall for me.

Yes. Yes that is exaaactly what I'm advocating. -_-

Savage93

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes. Yes that is exaaactly what I'm advocating. -_-

Nutter alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Edit:

Egypt bought 24 Rafales from the French, and are utilizing their F16s in bombing strikes on ISIS in Libya, in retaliation for the murder of 21 Egyptians.

"Bought" is one way to put it, France is selling them on credit as they need the sales order. India is back making noises about backing out of the Rafale deal (same old problem that they want the Western company to guarantee the schedule/quality of the Indian Subcontractor), and even with the domestic upgrade program I'd say Dassualt needs orders to keep the line open. The FREMM order has been cut as well with the Land Attack variant dropped, and if France and Italy are to get the BMD variant they need more hulls sold to bring down the price. So that's why you get this "contract"

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

"Bought" is one way to put it, France is selling them on credit as they need the sales order. India is back making noises about backing out of the Rafale deal (same old problem that they want the Western company to guarantee the schedule/quality of the Indian Subcontractor), and even with the domestic upgrade program I'd say Dassualt needs orders to keep the line open. The FREMM order has been cut as well with the Land Attack variant dropped, and if France and Italy are to get the BMD variant they need more hulls sold to bring down the price. So that's why you get this "contract"

Not necessarily "on credit". French banks are guaranteeing half the cost, which will probably cost the Egyptians a fistful of coins in interest.

I was also asking about why Egypt would buy them, not why France would sell them...

Markcheese

So if we had air defence either fighters or long range radar and missile system would we then be a target ?

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not necessarily "on credit". French banks are guaranteeing half the cost, which will probably cost the Egyptians a fistful of coins in interest.

I was also asking about why Egypt would buy them, not why France would sell them...

Egypt is buying them because they are a military dictatorship, buying weapons isn't unusual for them or any other dictatorship. Their frigates are old (Knox/Perry class) so it's not surprising that they want replacements.

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

So if we had air defence either fighters or long range radar and missile system would we then be a target ?

Are you asking, if we invested in defence would it make us a target? I'm fairly sure that the rational actors wouldn't consider us so, and the irrational actors don't care.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

Egypt is buying them because they are a military dictatorship, buying weapons isn't unusual for them or any other dictatorship. Their frigates are old (Knox/Perry class) so it's not surprising that they want replacements.

They already have 200+ F-16s, Mirage 2000s, Mirage Vs, MiG-29Ms, MiG-21s and J-7s.

They don't require 24 Rafales, considering their neighbours to the south and west can't field a proper air force.

Markcheese wrote: »

So if we had air defence either fighters or long range radar and missile system would we then be a target ?

Realistically, our contribution to the Nordic Battle Group already makes us a "target", since the E.U.'s largest and most dangerous geopolitical rival is Russia. If Russia attacked the Baltics, or Scandinavia, we'd be a target as well since we have troops (100?) who are under the Sweden-led group.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They already have 200+ F-16s, Mirage 2000s, Mirage Vs, MiG-29Ms, MiG-21s and J-7s.

They don't require 24 Rafales, considering their neighbours to the south and west can't field a proper air force.

They are a military dictatorship, who aren't even willing to reduce military spending/ownership of the Egyptian economy even though it's strangling the economy and causing domestic issues. They could be planning to replace the 30+ year old Miarge's/F 16's/MiGs or they just don't care as they want them and there's nobody to tell them no.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

They are a military dictatorship, who aren't even willing to reduce military spending/ownership of the Egyptian economy even though it's strangling the economy and causing domestic issues. They could be planning to replace the 30+ year old Miarge's/F 16's/MiGs or they just don't care as they want them and there's nobody to tell them no.

Egypt's economy is beginning to recover, and I prefer that a secularist military government holds power in Egypt, rather than a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Government.

Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals are up 74% and 61% respectively, food/beverage is up 78%. Their Stock Exchange is up 32%, and was named "Africa's most innovative stock exchange" by Africa Investor. Egypt has also got its hands on several IPOs being released (their value being around €100 million, granted). Their economic growth is expected to be 3.3% in 2015.

Yes, the unemployment is high, but the military-led government isn't designed solely to hold onto power at the expense of people, it's making geopolitical decisions.

outdoors247

We could weld wings onto every civic and make patrol boats from empty cans haha and then train ten thousand ninjas aswel

outdoors247

Really do we don't need a large air force or navy a few more boats and a few jets would help do

IrishTrajan

outdoors247 wrote: »

Really do we don't need a large air force or navy a few more boats and a few jets would help do

We could probably use some smaller, faster boats, for domestic affairs (fishery protection, anti-drug operations) but I would advocate the purchase of more expensive vessels for territorial protection, and larger vessels for Irish contributions on UN/humanitarian missions.

For defence, something like the Skjold-class corvette. They are light, fast and designed for stealth, and operating close to the shore (though they can operate in open sea). They're pretty expensive, at €116 million per unit, but they come with 8 "Naval Strike Missiles" (they come in land and sea variants, with NATO requesting Norway develop an air-variant for the F35 called the Joint Strike Missile). The missiles would give the defence forces exponential increases in capabilities. They also wouldn't require massive infrastructural investments, since they weigh around 275-tonnes (significantly smaller than the 1900-tonne Becketts, despite having significantly more firepower).


Those, and maybe the acquisition of a supply vessel (something akin to what the Royal Fleet Auxiliary) for extended missions, or humanitarian aid efforts, would drastically increase the ability of the Defence Forces.

Or, simply replacing all existing OPVs with Beckett-class ships, and expand the manpower available to the Naval Service.

KingBrian2

It's settled Ireland needs a leaner,meaner and stronger Air Corp that can retaliate if our Air space is violated. We need air defences that can keep our shores safe and secure from all possible dangers such as pirates, traffickers and smugglers. To top it off we need state of the art radar a later day equivalent to what the British had in WW2 to detect enemy aircraft that might be lurking in Irish waters.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It's settled Ireland needs a leaner,meaner and stronger Air Corp that can retaliate if our Air space is violated. We need air defences that can keep our shores safe and secure from all possible dangers such as pirates, traffickers and smugglers. To top it off we need state of the art radar a later day equivalent to what the British had in WW2 to detect enemy aircraft that might be lurking in Irish waters.

I wouldn't say necessarily that it has to become "leaner". It has to be given the resources it needs to function properly. 1.5-2% of GDP would allow for expansion of numbers currently in service (we're going to need manpower increases if the North votes to rejoin the Republic, as there are many groups who would oppose reunification), it would allow us to provide comprehensive hardware and software upgrades, it would allow us to operate much more efficiently.

Britain had a 5% reduction in spending, but the actual cost in efficiency was 8-11%, I think (I could be wrong). My point is, increasing funding by 300% (which is what we would require to reach 1.5%) won't result in a 300% more effective military... It would likely be 320-375% more effective.

expectationlost

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I was getting kind of giddy reading about the radar... You little son of a..




This. This. A thousand times this.

Irish people are by-and-large, too anti-military. They're proud to bring up peace-keeping missions in discussions, and the few whom I spoke to after Russia's close-call, are quite understanding in our need to defend ourselves. They just grossly overestimate the current capacity of the State (several men and women where wondering why we didn't just shoot the plane down... Despite the fact that we didn't know it was there, and that even if we did, we lack the capabilities to do so)

you told them i presume that there no legimate reason to do so.

IrishTrajan

expectationlost wrote: »

you told them i presume that there no legimate reason to do so.

There are legitimate reasons, named time and again. Just because you don't think it necessary, doesn't mean it isn't.

Captain Chaos

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They already have 200+ F-16s, Mirage 2000s, Mirage Vs, MiG-29Ms, MiG-21s and J-7s.

They don't require 24 Rafales, considering their neighbours to the south and west can't field a proper air force.
.

They don't have any MiG-29Ms (35), a deal was signed but nothing delivered. Most of its F-16s are older versions and need updates only about 20% are the latest models.

The Mirage 2000s are old C versions and need to be replaced. They are looking to the UAE to sell some second hand -9 versions equal to the latest F-16s in capabilities.

The Mirage Vs and MiG-21s are all being phased out so yes they do need those Rafales even though they are more expensive than the latest F-16s that the US will not sell to Egypt right now over strained relations.

They could have bought 36 Block52+ F-16s for less than what the paid for the 24 Rafales and have common spares and training with existing F-16s.