Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And Russia is not going bankrupt any time soon.

The people for decades were told to suffer for the glory of the motherland & the czar is playing the same card again... he has concocted plenty of outside threats to keep attention focused away from his ineptitude.

(also there is a lot wrong with that article from Soros).

I agree they aren't going bankrupt, think at some stage they might wake up to being China's B***h (due to a large combination of factors), but it's not going to happen soon.

But as I said at the same time, Russia does face huge issues across the board that does restrict them, I mean they have a lot of "projects" penciled in, but whether they ever get into service is the other question.

Ren2k7

FG vows to increase the Naval Service to 9 vessels as part of its manifesto.

• Naval Service: The ship replacement programme will continue and over the lifetime of the White Paper, Fine Gael will move from an 8- to a 9-ship naval flotilla, to provide for a multi-role vessel. This will allow for continued humanitarian assistance and will enhance Defence capability for maritime security operations.

http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

I'd imagine for many here this confirms who they're voting for now.

Markcheese

I looked up that page in the fg manifesto with a bit of trepidation,
But it's actually suitably vague- the white paper more or less, if we get the money bla -bla .
Thats good though .i'd be worried (for the nation ) if they were actually promising ,f-16s ,fremms and battle tanks. Couldnt pay for them and nowhere to use them anyway...
Would think army and garda intelligence (oxymoron I know ) would give most bang for the euro -wont win votes though ...

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

FG vows to increase the Naval Service to 9 vessels as part of its manifesto.



http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

I'd imagine for many here this confirms who they're voting for now.

So the EPV and 8 ships, so the plan was replacing the Peacocks with similar with Anti-Mine capability (however that works), so what's the extra ship going to be I wonder, another P60?

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

I looked up that page in the fg manifesto with a bit of trepidation,
But it's actually suitably vague- the white paper more or less, if we get the money bla -bla .
Thats good though .i'd be worried (for the nation ) if they were actually promising ,f-16s ,fremms and battle tanks. Couldnt pay for them and nowhere to use them anyway...
Would think army and garda intelligence (oxymoron I know ) would give most bang for the euro -wont win votes though ...

Well the expansion to the Navy wasn't in the WP, so there's that, wonder what the enlargement of the Rangers is about, haven't we had several announcements of enlarging them at this stage?

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

So the EPV and 8 ships, so the plan was replacing the Peacocks with similar with Anti-Mine capability (however that works), so what's the extra ship going to be I wonder, another P60?

The extra vessel would appear to be at odds with the FG drafted White Paper. Curious.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Well the expansion to the Navy wasn't in the WP, so there's that, wonder what the enlargement of the Rangers is about, haven't we had several announcements of enlarging them at this stage?

More Rangers makes sense. Ireland needs to be clever and considerate with its limited defence budget and you get far more bang for your buck with special forces than a few hundred more teenage reservists. The emphasis in most Western militaries these days tends to be doing more with less.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The extra vessel would appear to be at odds with the FG drafted White Paper. Curious.

I'm wondering if it's an immediate outcome of the Med operation, the WP would have been finalised before that, instead we had months of operations. From memory Coveny did make comments to PDFORA I think regarding the potential need of expanding the fleet if we were looking at a long term operational demand.

IrishTrajan

seanaway wrote: »

So, in brief - no worries about Russia as Putin is going to leave the Russian armed forces go to pot?

Have you read this?
http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-military-spending-2016-navy-air-force-modernize-expand-kremlin-says-2224045

The Russians are notorious for making grandiose statements and then reneging on them, and Russia's modernization is going to be focused a little less on Ireland and a little more on actual rivals.

I'm fully supportive of greater defence spending, but by no means will we have to deal with chasing Russian submarines - the Brits will do that.

Morpheus

What about marauding Russian blackjack bombers? (tu160's)

They were poncing around the english channel yesterday evening and how does this affect us you may ask?

Well heres a hint, they didn't get there by flying over france.

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

What about marauding Russian blackjack bombers? (tu160's)

They were poncing around the english channel yesterday evening and how does this affect us you may ask?

Well heres a hint, they didn't get there by flying over france.

True, but I'd call it fairly stupid to use the Blackjack's, I mean they only have about a dozen in operational usage (less than the B2's), using up their airframes lifespan on a routine mission seems pointless to me. This comes back to the point that disregarding their grand announcements, the actual depth of the Russian military is much thinner than some admit. I mean they are promising a new Stealth bomber in the mid 2020's but I doubt it to be honest.

But I'm sure the Mick/Claire/PANA loonies will still tell us it's all our/NATO/US fault for provoking the poor Russians.

Silvera

"The British aircraft were scrambled from a Royal Air Force base in eastern England and escorted the Russian planes while they flew in an area which is closely monitored by Britain, but outside its territorial airspace".

= Irish air space??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-fighters-idUKKCN0VQ1YL

seanaway

Silvera wrote: »

"The British aircraft were scrambled from a Royal Air Force base in eastern England and escorted the Russian planes while they flew in an area which is closely monitored by Britain, but outside its territorial airspace".

= Irish air space??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-fighters-idUKKCN0VQ1YL

Quick....out with the gallybanders! Because that's all we got..

Markcheese

Or just outside Britains 12 mile limit , in international airspace,

Pat Dunne

Silvera wrote: »

"The British aircraft were scrambled from a Royal Air Force base in eastern England and escorted the Russian planes while they flew in an area which is closely monitored by Britain, but outside its territorial airspace".

= Irish air space??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-fighters-idUKKCN0VQ1YL

Here you go. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98779668&postcount=614

Do you mean "Irish conrtolled air space" or "Irish territorial airspace"?
As "Irish controlled airspace" extends several hundred miles off the coast of Ireland. Whereas Irish territorial airspace extends to a limit of 12 miles from the nearest coastline.

Silvera

I just read an article in AFM about Uruaguay seeking replacements for its fleet of 40-year-old Cessna Dragonfly jets. It mentioned that they are considering YAK-130's and ex-Swiss AF F-5's. The article stated that they want jets with the capability to intercept both military and civilian jets and, as they are a small country, the replacement jets must have the requsite speed and onboard radar to conduct such intercepts.

Of the jets discussed for possible use by the Air Corps, which have onboard radar? ...I presume to the Gripen does?

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

Of the jets discussed for possible use by the Air Corps, which have onboard radar? ...I presume to the Gripen does?

A 30 second google search provided the following.

The Gripen entered service using the PS-05/A pulse-Doppler X band multi-mode radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi, which is based on the latter's advanced Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier that also served as the basis for the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar.[104][85] The all-weather radar is capable of locating and identifying targets 120 km (74 mi) away,[105] and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air. It can guide several beyond visual range air-to-air missiles to multiple targets simultaneously.[106] Saab stated the PS-05/A is able to handle all types of air defense, air-to-surface, and reconnaissance missions,[85] and is developing a Mark 4 upgrade to it.[107][108] The Mark 4 version has a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges, detection and tracking of smaller targets at current ranges, 140% improvement in air-to-air mode at low altitude, and full integration of modern weapons such as the AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, and MBDA Meteor missiles.

Silvera

Negative_G wrote: »

A 30 second google search provided the following.

I'd say it took a little more than 30 seconds?!;)

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

I'd say it took a little more than 30 seconds?!;)

You'd be surprised!

seanaway

All fantasy talk lads. No government here will ever have the bal*s to spend money on REAL air defence systems...end of.

Negative_G

seanaway wrote: »

All fantasy talk lads. No government here will ever have the bal*s to spend money on REAL air defence systems...end of.

Well that's it folks, discussion over.

Silvera

Negative_G wrote: »

Well that's it folks, discussion over.

Dont agree.

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

Dont agree.

seanaway

Negative_G wrote: »

Well that's it folks, discussion over.

Can't see the point of a discussion on this point that has no hope of ever reflecting reality.

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

Can't see the point of a discussion on this point that has no hope of ever reflecting reality.

Then why are you posting in it? Plenty of the topics in Boards.ie could be summed up the same, do you go into each one?

Shannon757

seanaway wrote: »

All fantasy talk lads. No government here will ever have the bal*s to spend money on REAL air defence systems...end of.

Not if we get elected as our own party.

Dublin_Gunner

Shannon757 wrote: »

Not if we get elected as our own party.

Anti-Air Alliance, Prevent Bear Patrols.

AAA-PBP - has a nice ring to it.

seanaway

sparky42 wrote: »

Then why are you posting in it? Plenty of the topics in Boards.ie could be summed up the same, do you go into each one?

Nope. I came in here as I thought it might have some views from people who have influence in the area....
Seems to be just people who like to have a fantasy chat...

Not saying that what you are saying is wrong. You guys do know your stuff for the most part but it just won't happen in Ireland.

Silvera

seanaway wrote: »

Nope. I came in here as I thought it might have some views from people who have influence in the area....
Seems to be just people who like to have a fantasy chat...

Not saying that what you are saying is wrong. You guys do know your stuff for the most part but it just won't happen in Ireland.

So you think govt ministers and Air Corps chiefs post on boards.ie?! Nice idea... but pure fantasy! :P

Morpheus

[mod]please keep it civil lads[/mod]

we all would like to see major investment in air defences - the thing is its all conjecture and fantasy, to a point.
There may be some members here who are serving or who have served, but you most likely wont hear them admit to it always, there are strict military rules governing the use of the internet and social media for serving members of the DF, both PDF and RDF.

Back to the matter in hand, what IS real from discussions involving the whitepaper and some comments included therein, is the desire to purchase some form of military air search radar capability for the west coast and a mention of investigating the possibility of fighter jets, please remember, we have as a country operated more than one type of jet fighters in the past, vampire and fouga's, its not impossible, the cost implications of such capital expenditure coupled with the current defence envelope are however limiting what we can realistically hope for. hopefully over the course of the next 2 or 3 governments we begin to admit to ownership of one of the largest EEZs in the EU and begin to plan on how to successfully monitor, manage and protect it, sub surface, surface and air.