Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.
Options
Comments
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »Well, for one, they will be using transponders so civilian aviation authorities will know where they are so they can adjust flight paths so there isn't a mid air collision...
fair point but that suggests they are out of primary radar range.
but then the comdt is littel vague when he says 'Irish airspace' and 'our skies'.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »how does 'intercepting' the planes (following them like what the UK did near them) protect our skies?
You're right, just let them off, begrandtofcuk. Vladimir Putin is definitely not a man to probe countries for weaknesses and then mercilessly exploit them, so letting him do whatever the fcuk he likes is the wisest course of action. Nothing bad can possibly come from it. Besides, you couldn't possibly expect an Irish pilot to miss the sport or the Late Late. Also, they might get a bloody nose, so I agree soldiers should never put themselves in danger.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »fair point but that suggests they are out of primary radar range.
but then the comdt is littel vague when he says 'Irish airspace' and 'our skies'.
We don't have any primary radar in military use. And most aircraft are designed to fool primary radar these days.
They flew through Irish-controlled airspace, we're responsible for watching it and making sure nothing happens. For all intents and purposes, it is ours.0 -
yes we have primary radar in military use, we have our civilian primary radar which is in military use.IrishTrajan wrote: »We don't have any primary radar in military use. And most aircraft are designed to fool primary radar these days.
They flew through Irish-controlled airspace, we're responsible for watching it and making sure nothing happens. For all intents and purposes, it is ours.
but interesting what you said, I was distracted by the constant use of the term interception which suggests stopping or redirecting, which neither we nor the UK would do in international airspace, what he might be suggesting is that the Irish Air Corp do what the RAF do, act as proxy warning beacons for civilian planes, by following the transponderless planes, is there a technical term for that?
while the ultimate solution to the problem of military planes flying in busy civilain air corridors may not be military, its more civilian one (via the ICAO), or a state to state discussion.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »yes we have primary radar in military use, we have our civilian primary radar which is in military use.
but interesting what you said, I was distracted by the constant use of the term interception which suggests stopping or redirecting, which neither we nor the UK would do in international airspace, what he might be suggesting is that the Irish Air Corp do what the RAF do, act as proxy warning beacons for civilian planes, by following the transponderless planes, is there a technical term for that?
while the ultimate solution to the problem of military planes flying in busy civilain air corridors may not be military, its more civilian one (via the ICAO), or a state to state discussion.
Thats precisely what I meant all along, air intercept does not mean redirect or destroy, it means intercept with another object at same space and time and location.
The primary radars are NOT in military use, the irish air corps was only made aware of unidentified aircraft AFTER the signal was picked up by primary civilian radar and presumably after a couple of phonecalls up and down chains of command - its a completely different animal than military spec primary radar.
we SHOULD have capability to go out there and police the airspace whether this means intercepting, identifying and escorting aircraft through our airspace or infact if necessary shuttling them completely away from danger.
SAAB Gripen leasing is the answer at expense of 100m p.a. from overseas aid budget. simple.0 -
Advertisement
-
Thats precisely what I meant all along, air intercept does not mean redirect or destroy, it means intercept with another object at same space and time and location.
The primary radars are NOT in military use, the irish air corps was only made aware of unidentified aircraft AFTER the signal was picked up by primary civilian radar and presumably after a couple of phonecalls up and down chains of command - its a completely different animal than military spec primary radar.
we SHOULD have capability to go out there and police the airspace whether this means intercepting, identifying and escorting aircraft through our airspace or infact if necessary shuttling them completely away from danger.
SAAB Gripen leasing is the answer at expense of 100m p.a. from overseas aid budget. simple.
I agree with this. The overseas aid budget, the size of it and how it's spent is luidicrous to me.
What you say is simple unfortunately is not. Politically it's tantamount to suicide. Can you imagine the outcry? From the left, the media, Jesus 90%of the population even.This less than a year to a general election. It is simply not going to happen.
Sadly, as is often the case in this country, it will take something very serious to happen for a Gripen lease and/or major upgrade to air surveillance and defence to even begin to be contemplated. Usually what happens then is the people who would be crying the loudest at a national investment ie air defence would be the very ones castigating the current political incumbents as to why there wasn't any defence to begin with.
Such are our political and cultural ways.....0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »We don't need to sign any Hague Convention to be neutral, we just decide to be. As for us being not neutral well that is plainly wrong. We send troops oversees expressly to underline our neutrality. When Canadian troops were acting as peacekeepers in Rwanda it was due to their impartiality with the regional powers. Netherlands had troops stationed in Srebrenica as they were UN mandated protection force had no qualms with either side. I could go on. A demilitarised Zone between Egypt and Israel with UN troops, some Pakistani soldiers stationed in war torn DR Congo so my point is we are a perfectly neutral country. Not engaging in any military operations, surveillance or commando assaults. So yes I would describe us as a neutral state.
British and US forces have frequently took part in UN peacekeeping missions.0 -
Thats precisely what I meant all along, air intercept does not mean redirect or destroy, it means intercept with another object at same space and time and location.
The primary radars are NOT in military use, the irish air corps was only made aware of unidentified aircraft AFTER the signal was picked up by primary civilian radar and presumably after a couple of phonecalls up and down chains of command - its a completely different animal than military spec primary radar.
we SHOULD have capability to go out there and police the airspace whether this means intercepting, identifying and escorting aircraft through our airspace or infact if necessary shuttling them completely away from danger.
SAAB Gripen leasing is the answer at expense of 100m p.a. from overseas aid budget. simple.
I'll give you persistence and consistancy :-)
Just humor me and run me through how you'll get an air defence system up and running for € 100,000,000 per anumn - it takes a wee bit more than just leasing them .Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
I agree with this. The overseas aid budget, the size of it and how it's spent is luidicrous to me.
What you say is simple unfortunately is not. Politically it's tantamount to suicide. Can you imagine the outcry? From the left, the media, Jesus 90%of the population even.This less than a year to a general election. It is simply not going to happen.
Sadly, as is often the case in this country, it will take something very serious to happen for a Gripen lease and/or major upgrade to air surveillance and defence to even begin to be contemplated. Usually what happens then is the people who would be crying the loudest at a national investment ie air defence would be the very ones castigating the current political incumbents as to why there wasn't any defence to begin with.
Such are our political and cultural ways.....
To be fair, most people don't know what capabilities the Irish Air Corps has, and probably wouldn't really care. Just do it on the downlow, and those who are interested will know, those who don't won't be affected by it whatsoever.
Public outcry doesn't really solve anything, anyway. Look at the water protests. Thousands of people go to protests, but the meters still went in.
I agree with you, it's unlikely we'll see the air corps get any major overhauls, but it's a real pain in the ass knowing nonsense prevails over sense in our political climate.0 -
Markcheese wrote: »I'll give you persistence and consistancy :-)
Just humor me and run me through how you'll get an air defence system up and running for € 100,000,000 per anumn - it takes a wee bit more than just leasing them .
Most tender offers take a couple years to come to fruition, so we'll assume one Dáil term.
Whatever isn't spent in each year will, likely, roll over into the next one i.e. If €90m is spent in year two, then year three will have €110m.
Year One: €100m into infrastructure.
Year Two: €100m into training the pilots (the Brits, or hell even the Swedes) would probably be only too happy to train our first few pilots.
Year Three: €100m to bring any systems up to date that would be required.
Year Four: €80m for the aircraft themselves, €20m is left over for maintenance work, I assume.
Every year after would be €80-100m to cover the cost of running them, training new pilots and such.
Hardly rocket science, to be fair.0 -
Advertisement
-
British and US forces have frequently took part in UN peacekeeping missions.
They are part of NATO which is a military alliance. They are not neutral, an attack on one is an attack on all. Syria attacks Turkey all the members start piling in. All NATO countries have strict policies on where their militaries go. Britain is not neutral because if the US has a war policy usually the UK will back them up in some capacity militarily. I would not consider that neutral. The French, Israeli's, Iranians, North Koreans, Saudis, Russians, Chinese and Turks are also not impartial, they have various strategic interests around the world rendering any claim of being neutral invalid.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »They are part of NATO which is a military alliance. They are not neutral, an attack on one is an attack on all. Syria attacks Turkey all the members start piling in. All NATO countries have strict policies on where their militaries go. Britain is not neutral because if the US has a war policy usually the UK will back them up in some capacity militarily. I would not consider that neutral. The French, Israeli's, Iranians, North Koreans, Saudis, Russians, Chinese and Turks are also not impartial, they have various strategic interests around the world rendering any claim of being neutral invalid.
I'm sorry but what's your point? Neutrality has nothing to do with being effective Peacekeeping.0 -
I'm sorry but what's your point? Neutrality has nothing to do with being effective Peacekeeping.
What's my point?:mad: I would have thought that be self evident. NATO countries are not neutral, neither are Military alliances.
Ireland is not involved in any military alliance, not counting the EU brigades since they are part of our national defence. The other countries I mentioned courts countries to join their alliance and involves certain amount of GDP to go into defence.0 -
EU Brigades = EU Battlegroups, not brigades
NATO asks countries spend a certain % of their GDP but a lot of countries dont match this.
Ireland has second LOWEST defence spend in EU - it should be closer to 2% yet isnt even close to 1% [1]
Irish Defence Forces is part of alliances:
EU battlegroups
OSCE
UN missions
EU Battlegroup is not part of our national defence, rather our defence forces are part of a multinational EU military force. The Battle Groups are designed to deal with those tasks faced by the Common Security and Defence Policy, namely the Petersberg tasks (military tasks of a humanitarian, peacekeeping and peacemaking nature. Its missions may include conflict prevention, evacuation, aid deliverance or initial stabilisation. In general these would fall into three categories; brief support of existing troops, rapid deployment preparing the ground for larger forces or small scale rapid response missions
NOTE:- Irelands triple lock still applies. [2]
Most importantly NATO PfP - we have troops serving on ISAF mission in Afghanistan. [3]
Now our own indigenous partnership with UK, first in MALI on a training mission and most recently when we "normalized" relations by agreeing to officially recognize our close ties and combined training / pooling of capabilities / cross training and possible deals on surplus equipment in the Memorandum of Understanding.[4]
All of this serves to bolster our national defence and to frame the future of our defence policy. We are starting to grow up a little in reference to our foreign policy and maintaining close ties to our closest neighbours and the greater EU as a whole, not a bad decision in a world which is becoming a little bit more hostile from non party actors as well as major foreign forces.
[1] WorldBank Website
[2] EU Battlegroups Website
[3] Defence Froces Website
[4] Merrion Street Website0 -
-
KingBrian2 wrote: »They are part of NATO which is a military alliance. They are not neutral, an attack on one is an attack on all. Syria attacks Turkey all the members start piling in. All NATO countries have strict policies on where their militaries go. Britain is not neutral because if the US has a war policy usually the UK will back them up in some capacity militarily. I would not consider that neutral. The French, Israeli's, Iranians, North Koreans, Saudis, Russians, Chinese and Turks are also not impartial, they have various strategic interests around the world rendering any claim of being neutral invalid.
You're missing my point. You claimed that because we provide troops overseas as part of UN peacekeeping missions that "underlines our neutrality". If that is true then likewise the US and Britain are also neutral given they too have provided troops for UN peacekeeping missions as well.0 -
You're missing my point. You claimed that because we provide troops overseas as part of UN peacekeeping missions that "underlines our neutrality". If that is true then likewise the US and Britain are also neutral given they too have provided troops for UN peacekeeping missions as well.
Yes because we send Irish troops into battle to fight evil wrong doers. The plain facts here is that we have no soldiers in combat roles. We are de-mining Afghanistan but the moment a situation gets difficult our troops are pulled out to prevent casualties and also not to take sides in any conflict situation Take the Golan Heights, conditions worsened and we were told not to intervene in any real capacity. It is just like the case of the Canadians serving as peacekeepers in Rwanda and they did nothing.
Neutral countries do no fighting in battles, we sit back and operate as UN representatives. The large military alliances like NATO might dislike the UN and the peacekeepers but they can have a powerful military leaving us to sit back put up our legs and have a cold fresh drink. Forgive my sarcasm but the claim that Irish troops are involved in warzones as non neutrals is not reality. Indeed we are more likely to be attacked by Al Qaeda not because of our military but because we are christian.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »Yes because we send Irish troops into battle to fight evil wrong doers. The plain facts here is that we have no soldiers in combat roles. We are de-mining Afghanistan but the moment a situation gets difficult our troops are pulled out to prevent casualties and also not to take sides in any conflict situation Take the Golan Heights, conditions worsened and we were told not to intervene in any real capacity. It is just like the case of the Canadians serving as peacekeepers in Rwanda and they did nothing.
Neutral countries do no fighting in battles, we sit back and operate as UN representatives. The large military alliances like NATO might dislike the UN and the peacekeepers but they can have a powerful military leaving us to sit back put up our legs and have a cold fresh drink. Forgive my sarcasm but the claim that Irish troops are involved in warzones as non neutrals is not reality. Indeed we are more likely to be attacked by Al Qaeda not because of our military but because we are christian.
Are you aware of the Siege of Jadotville?
Or the rescue by our elite Ranger Wing of hostages held captive by insurgents in Liberia?
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/crack-troops-rescue-hostages-from-gunmen-in-daring-raid-26019636.html
Neutral countries very much engage in armed conflicts.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »Yes because we send Irish troops into battle to fight evil wrong doers. The plain facts here is that we have no soldiers in combat roles. We are de-mining Afghanistan but the moment a situation gets difficult our troops are pulled out to prevent casualties and also not to take sides in any conflict situation Take the Golan Heights, conditions worsened and we were told not to intervene in any real capacity. It is just like the case of the Canadians serving as peacekeepers in Rwanda and they did nothing.
Neutral countries do no fighting in battles, we sit back and operate as UN representatives. The large military alliances like NATO might dislike the UN and the peacekeepers but they can have a powerful military leaving us to sit back put up our legs and have a cold fresh drink. Forgive my sarcasm but the claim that Irish troops are involved in warzones as non neutrals is not reality. Indeed we are more likely to be attacked by Al Qaeda not because of our military but because we are christian.
NATO nations, and pretty much everyone else dislike the UN as it's completely disfunctional. Take for example the actions on the Golan Heights last year, UN in New York basically punted to the on the ground commanders (to avoid responsibilty), the on the ground commander made a call which some units obeyed (those captured) while others refused (those that escaped) while leaving us to pick up the pieces (with the response force), and afterwards everyone proceeded to blame each other for the cluster**** that it was. The UN has a history of hanging peacekeeping forces out to dry with stupid and unsustainable ROE's and not defending the operations politically, which is why pretty much all the professional forces (ie those not doing it just for the cash the UN pays) hate it. The reason the UN forces do nothing is that they aren't legally allowed do anything (for example we don't deploy Javelins or Mortars to the Golan Heights as the ROE's don't allow it.
By the way you are aware that even in the patrols on the Heights Irish forces have engaged enemy forces (there's that clip of a MOWAG getting it's wheel blown off for example). We are neutral because we as a nation don't care at all about the state of the world, we let other nations do the job and clap ourselves on the back telling ourselves really loudly that somehow we are the morally superior ones when it fact it's the nations that keep us safe that are. We are more likely to be attacked by ISIS because they just want to kill then for any other reason (and if that ever happens, you and the rest will complain a) why didn't the Government stop it, and b) why didn't the other nations stop it, or c) just blame the other nations in the first place.0 -
Hi Folks,
To upgrade state to a capability where it could defend itself against a modern military attack i think we would need following,
this is just my honest opinion,
1. At least one well equipped squadron 12+ of Mig 35/ gripen or similar including ground support staff and awacs or similar.
2. At least one pref two nuclear powered submarines
3.40+ heavy battle tanks leopard 2 or similar
4. modern missile defense system.
5. 10,000+ extra infantry +10,000 extra trained reserves [including heavy guns/anti tank]
looking for prices on all of this[ mig 35 about €25 million euro a unit][ and welcome all opinions not looking for arguments lol.0 -
Advertisement
-
coolhandspan wrote: »Hi Folks,
To upgrade state to a capability where it could defend itself against a modern military attack i think we would need following,
this is just my honest opinion,
1. At least one well equipped squadron 12+ of Mig 35/ gripen or similar including ground support staff and awacs or similar.
2. At least one pref two nuclear powered submarines
3.40+ heavy battle tanks leopard 2 or similar
4. modern missile defense system.
5. 10,000+ extra infantry +10,000 extra trained reserves [including heavy guns/anti tank]
looking for prices on all of this[ mig 35 about €25 million euro a unit][ and welcome all opinions not looking for arguments lol.
who's going to pay for and maintain all this, while they sit in a barracks playing cards, and it all rusts away to obsolescence ? I suppose if they get bored they could invade rockall, before the brits give them a spanking.0 -
thanks for reply. im just checking prices on this?? if we want to defend ourselves without relying on british help do we need my list??0
-
coolhandspan wrote: »thanks for reply. im just checking prices on this?? if we want to defend ourselves without relying on british help do we need my list??
Drop the SSN, there's zero call for it, zero budget for it and no ability to sustain it. At the very extreme we'd be looking at a SSK or two (really need at least two, but can't really see the call for it). Many of the European nations of our size have reduced their MBT forces, so I'd just go with more MOWAG's. 40 isn't really enough for combat just enough to sustain the knowledge base IMO.0 -
coolhandspan wrote: »thanks for reply. im just checking prices on this?? if we want to defend ourselves without relying on british help do we need my list??
From who exactly ? Lowing flying seagulls across the bog of allen ?
Enda and the blueshirts perhaps ?
We need a decent coastguard, never mind walter mitty and playing soldiers.0 -
yes agree sparky. but im looking for a price to bring us up to level where we could defend ourselves without relying on help. i am a realist. your point on submarines is valid.0
-
From who exactly ? Lowing flying seagulls across the bog of allen ?
Enda and the blueshirts perhaps ?
We need a decent coastguard, never mind walter mitty and playing soldiers.
why bother posting insults, we are part of an eu battlegroup yet we can not defend ourselves. i only asked how much it would cost. i didn't insult you. thanks,0 -
coolhandspan wrote: »yes agree sparky. but im looking for a price to bring us up to level where we could defend ourselves without relying on help. i am a realist. your point on submarines is valid.
It's not just the price tag for the hardware, you are talking all the supply chain needs as well (for example simulators, lead in trainers for fast jets, spares, weapons, upgrades to base facilities). Off the top of my head you'd be talking of over a decade of well above NATO 2% spending to build up eveything that would be needed.
If you are a realist, accept that we aren't going to be facing anything alone, so it might be more a case of hw much would it cost to get other nations to support some areas while we develop other capabilites (like the NATO Baltic air defence program).0 -
It's not just the price tag for the hardware, you are talking all the supply chain needs as well (for example simulators, lead in trainers for fast jets, spares, weapons, upgrades to base facilities). Off the top of my head you'd be talking of over a decade of well above NATO 2% spending to build up eveything that would be needed.
If you are a realist, accept that we aren't going to be facing anything alone, so it might be more a case of hw much would it cost to get other nations to support some areas while we develop other capabilites (like the NATO Baltic air defence program).
yes again agree, so what we can achieve within reason, massive increase in reserve capability, squadron of fast attack air, utilise nordic air defense/borrow, and possibly their submarines ??0 -
coolhandspan wrote: »yes again agree, so what we can achieve within reason, massive increase in reserve capability, squadron of fast attack air, utilise nordic air defense/borrow, and possibly their submarines ??
There's not really a need to increase the size of the Army by 10,000 active and 10,000 reserves. Increase the reserves to 1:1 parity with the PDF, yes. Give them heavier weapons, dedicated armoured and air support, and let them serve abroad if they wish.
The Air Corps could do with jet aircraft, either ground attack or air-to-air fighters.
Most of the investment should go to the Naval Service. Replace the current OPVs, buy some heavier missile-frigates, buy some logistic ships for extended patrols and with heli-pad to carry 2 helicopters for anti-ship/submarine and electronic warfare, and an SSK or two (preferably configured to carry sea-to-ground missiles as well as anti-ship missiles).
I'd prefer we buy something like the CV90 120-T than Mowags. They're designed to operate in the cold climate of Scandinavia, and the 120mm cannon gives it enough of a punch to turn Russian armour into scrap metal. They can also be configured to work as command/control, emergency medic centres, mechanical repair vehicles, troop transports, anti-aircraft, anti-personnel... They're a lot more versatile than the MOWAGs.
It'd run up a couple billion, which we could afford at 1.5-2% of GDP, but only after a decade or so of increasing the capabilities. We need to have junior commanders and crews capable of operating such hardware, which takes years to achieve.
Sweden is having trouble working out how they're going to stop any Russian aggression, since they've lost years of possible commanders and are behind the ball game. It'll take them half a decade to a decade to build up any decent crews.0 -
Advertisement
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »There's not really a need to increase the size of the Army by 10,000 active and 10,000 reserves. Increase the reserves to 1:1 parity with the PDF, yes. Give them heavier weapons, dedicated armoured and air support, and let them serve abroad if they wish.
The Air Corps could do with jet aircraft, either ground attack or air-to-air fighters.
Most of the investment should go to the Naval Service. Replace the current OPVs, buy some heavier missile-frigates, buy some logistic ships for extended patrols and with heli-pad to carry 2 helicopters for anti-ship/submarine and electronic warfare, and an SSK or two (preferably configured to carry sea-to-ground missiles as well as anti-ship missiles).
I'd prefer we buy something like the CV90 120-T than Mowags. They're designed to operate in the cold climate of Scandinavia, and the 120mm cannon gives it enough of a punch to turn Russian armour into scrap metal. They can also be configured to work as command/control, emergency medic centres, mechanical repair vehicles, troop transports, anti-aircraft, anti-personnel... They're a lot more versatile than the MOWAGs.
It'd run up a couple billion, which we could afford at 1.5-2% of GDP, but only after a decade or so of increasing the capabilities. We need to have junior commanders and crews capable of operating such hardware, which takes years to achieve.
Sweden is having trouble working out how they're going to stop any Russian aggression, since they've lost years of possible commanders and are behind the ball game. It'll take them half a decade to a decade to build up any decent crews.
The MOWAG's have multiple vartiants as well, including a 105mm, bt frankly no IFV should be thebasis of stopping MBT's, that's not their job. As I've said before yes back when the decision was made I think the 90 would have been the better option. But since we went with MOWAG, then we should bloody stick with it and not create micro fleet's which just add's to the supply chain for all areas. Certainly we should get muc more of the variants (direct fire, indirect fire etc).0
Advertisement