Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

donvito99

Cheapest option would be to join NATO, screw the 2% requirement and paint Russian activity on the west coast to be as threatening as activity in the Baltics where NATO provides a QRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing).

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

The RN has had to use OPV's to do escorts for Russian hulls, or in some cases leave them for a couple of days, that and the coming hull crunch they face means that they have their own priorities.

I've been reading up on late on the hull situation in the RN on the few UK defence sites.

Quite tragic how things are there.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I've been reading up on late on the hull situation in the RN on the few UK defence sites.

Quite tragic how things are there.

That's an understatement IMO, combined they've really fecked up and it doesn't look like it's getting better in any way, but it's not like it wasn't flagged.

The point it, when you consider once QE goes operational and is being used out of Europe, then that's going to need a set number of hulls, add in other taskings, repair/refit and end of life... The RN isn't going to be thrilled at picking up anything we can't simply due to our unwillingness to pay.

sparky42

donvito99 wrote: »

Cheapest option would be to join NATO, screw the 2% requirement and paint Russian activity on the west coast to be as threatening as activity in the Baltics where NATO provides a QRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing).

It wouldn't be cheap politically, and more over, we are not those nations, I could guess the response from others when our defence spending is still beyond a bad joke.

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

It wouldn't be cheap politically, and more over, we are not those nations, I could guess the response from others when our defence spending is still beyond a bad joke.

Indeed.
Ireland is 3 times wealthier than the trio of Baltic States combined.
No chance playing the poor man.

Plus, we would be unlikely to get a special dispensation like Iceland either.

Jawgap

Larbre34 wrote: »

Incident on Sept 22nd, two Russian Blackjack bombers flew a course from the Arctic,down Norway, Scotland, Ireland, France and Iberia. Along four of those five coasts they were intercepted and escorted by QRA from local air stations.

Have a guess which coast they flew along unmolested and unencumbered??

A shameful disgrace as usual.

They weren't off out coast - they were in our 'area of interest' which is to say they were out over the ocean not breaching our sovereignty.

The idea we should blow several hundred million each year to maintain the capability to escort the odd Bear is, frankly, ridiculous. Especially, as we will never, ever authorise a shootdown - can you really see Edna or any Taoiseach - ordering one? So if we are not going to offer a credible threat why bother?

deRanged

We could at least make a start by putting together a proper radar system, and then provide feeds from that system to our neighbours.
That's entirely affordable. Once that's in place we could look at interceptors or missile defense systems.

Boreas

They only way anything will ever change in regard to military spending in Ireland is if it becomes a political issue.

Those who want to see Ireland spend the money necessary to create a modern Army/Navy/Air Force capable of deterring Russian agression, taking part in international deployments other than peace keeping, joining NATO, or whatever people imagine such a military would do, need to organise in the real world.

Every issue seems to have its own pressure group or 'institute' and they all try to pursuade government to change policy in the direction they want. What people need to do is start a pro-Defence spending lobby group. This is hard work and will take years to get anywhere but right now if there is a debate on new ships for the Navy or replacement aircraft or whatever who does RTE call for a pro-defence spokesperson? Serving military are limited in what they can say.

A small group with a few hundred members could ensure that politians get questions on the lack of military capability on a regular basis. When something like the Russian aircraft transiting the Irish area of control happens someone needs to be issuing a press release or organising people to call into local radio shows etc.. Most media have more hours/pages than they can fill and will use press releases if they are well written and come from an organisation that has some support and builds up a track record.

There is no organisation trying to convince the public that Ireland needs a more capable military or that the country has a duty as one of the world's richer states to play a greater roll. I'm sure the average politician never gets questions from constituents on the military, and the reality is they will only act if they think there are votes to support action.

Just my two cents, easy for me to say I'm not living in Ireland at the moment...

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

I know you're of Anglo-Irish Protestant stock Sutch but even so doesn't that sound a little weak?

Silvera

While talk of Ireland getting 'jets' has gone quiet here...

Are there any developments / movement as regards the (c.€10million) 'full radar coverage' which was mooted by former Defence Minister Coveney a couple of years ago??

BoJack Horseman

Silvera wrote: »

While talk of Ireland getting 'jets' has gone quiet here...

Are there any developments / movement as regards the (c.€10million) 'full radar coverage' which was mooted by former Defence Minister Coveney a couple of years ago??

Well, they gave themselves the lifespan of the white paper to implement this very modest capability.

the capital budget for the defence forces was bolstered by a whopping €7m at the last budget!

seanaway

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, they gave themselves the lifespan of the white paper to implement this very modest capability.

the capital budget for the defence forces was bolstered by a whopping €7m at the last budget!

Lads - give it up . Ireland will NEVER have air defence worth diddly - Politicians too cwardly/ignorant. Public too indifferent/ignoran. SF - well enough said.

AnGaelach

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I understand that for some people being a 'powerful' nation and grandeur and all that seems important.
Grand if you're a large nation with resources that attract other hostile nations etc you may have to bite the bullet and have proper defense forces. But for Ireland it would be money out the window and a pointless gesture imho. Some people mention the threat of Russia. Don't get me started on that one. Whatever one may think about Russia I think Ireland is as much in their strategic consideration as is Burkina Faso.

Yeah, it's not like we'd ever have to stop Loyalists setting off bombs in the Republic, or that we might end up with Islamists hijacking a plane and pulling off a miniature 9/11.

It's absolutely ridiculous to think that just because we don't need a strong defence forces now means we never will. The time and energy it takes to actually create a competent military infrastructure makes it impossible to go from an emaciated skeleton force to one capable of actually defending the State.

It's cheaper and easier to build and maintain a small, highly efficient and highly competent force than to let it die and then try to rush some sort of effective defence together if the need ever arises.

AnGaelach

Whether you like it or not, Ireland is going to need modern capabilities at some stage. That's just a fact of statistics, as time goes on the risk of war increases exponentially. It may not happen in 5 years, or 30 years, but you can't make the argument that it'll never happen - a bit like the Gaelic clans fighting each other and never thinking some lad would go off to Wales to court the Normans into helping him. I'm sure he never thought they'd decide to stick around either.

If anything, Brexit has increased the need for having a competent military in place. Not because we're going to be fighting the British army, but by simple virtue of having two budding global powers rubbing shoulders and who already have a history of antagonising each other.

With Britain out of the EU, there'll be no major power left to block the attempts at creating a common military (for good or for worse). This leaves Ireland in a conundrum, we have our opt-out but is that going to be defended vigorously enough by the Government? I'd fear not. And even so, the EU will inevitably see us as part of their "sphere" of influence and see our lack of infrastructure as concerning for them. If I was the EU, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Government to increase in defence, or I'd look at pressuring them into accepting the deployment of EU forces. Likewise, if I was the British, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Irish Government to remain demilitarised and neutral so that they can be pressured into accepting a more passive role in letting Britain secure the Atlantic.

So we have 3 options, really. We pick the EU, we pick Britain, or we try to run a balancing act. Each of these requires having some sort a credible military force. We aren't going to turn the tide in any wars, but having an atrophied DF leaves us up shít's creek without a paddle.

I'd advocate for a balanced approach, which requires several things:

1. Maintaining our opt-out of EU defence proposals:
This requires being able to show that we are capable of defending ourselves. The EU's unlikely to pressure us into allowing them to position any sort of troops here if we have the capacity to defend Ireland domestically.
2. Expanding our MoU with Britain:
Again, it requires making clear our relationship and under what areas we can work together (e.g. Northern Ireland) while also making sure they can't pressure us into doing something we don't want.
3. Prolonged and sustained media campaign in the US:
Obviously it doesn't have much military application, but making sure to put aside money to make sure we have a strong public approval record with the US public is enormously beneficial - we can highlight things like historic ties (Fenian invasion of Canada, Washington's Irish, the US Civil War), cultural ties (appealing to Irish-Americans), political ties (needing an external power to help with the GFA and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland), economic ties (the sheer size of US investment in Ireland).

Of course, this would require stumping up some cash. Our annual budget would probably need to double (not overnight but definitely over the course of a decade we'd need to make strides to reaching 1.5-2%) and we'd need to have a concrete strategy in place (e.g. stockpiling munitions, carrying out large-scale training exercises).



Aside from the rant, I've also nothing better to do on Halloween than drunkenly look up what would possibly fill the gaps. Note, this includes mid-term "stop-gaps" to fill competencies and long-term desirability:

Air Force:
- 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period.
- A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island).
- 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs.

Army:
- 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT).
- Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet
- Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these.

Navy:
- Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class
- Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel
- Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.

gallag

AnGaelach wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, Ireland is going to need modern capabilities at some stage. That's just a fact of statistics, as time goes on the risk of war increases exponentially. It may not happen in 5 years, or 30 years, but you can't make the argument that it'll never happen - a bit like the Gaelic clans fighting each other and never thinking some lad would go off to Wales to court the Normans into helping him. I'm sure he never thought they'd decide to stick around either.

If anything, Brexit has increased the need for having a competent military in place. Not because we're going to be fighting the British army, but by simple virtue of having two budding global powers rubbing shoulders and who already have a history of antagonising each other.

With Britain out of the EU, there'll be no major power left to block the attempts at creating a common military (for good or for worse). This leaves Ireland in a conundrum, we have our opt-out but is that going to be defended vigorously enough by the Government? I'd fear not. And even so, the EU will inevitably see us as part of their "sphere" of influence and see our lack of infrastructure as concerning for them. If I was the EU, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Government to increase in defence, or I'd look at pressuring them into accepting the deployment of EU forces. Likewise, if I was the British, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Irish Government to remain demilitarised and neutral so that they can be pressured into accepting a more passive role in letting Britain secure the Atlantic.

So we have 3 options, really. We pick the EU, we pick Britain, or we try to run a balancing act. Each of these requires having some sort a credible military force. We aren't going to turn the tide in any wars, but having an atrophied DF leaves us up shít's creek without a paddle.

I'd advocate for a balanced approach, which requires several things:

1. Maintaining our opt-out of EU defence proposals:
This requires being able to show that we are capable of defending ourselves. The EU's unlikely to pressure us into allowing them to position any sort of troops here if we have the capacity to defend Ireland domestically.
2. Expanding our MoU with Britain:
Again, it requires making clear our relationship and under what areas we can work together (e.g. Northern Ireland) while also making sure they can't pressure us into doing something we don't want.
3. Prolonged and sustained media campaign in the US:
Obviously it doesn't have much military application, but making sure to put aside money to make sure we have a strong public approval record with the US public is enormously beneficial - we can highlight things like historic ties (Fenian invasion of Canada, Washington's Irish, the US Civil War), cultural ties (appealing to Irish-Americans), political ties (needing an external power to help with the GFA and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland), economic ties (the sheer size of US investment in Ireland).

Of course, this would require stumping up some cash. Our annual budget would probably need to double (not overnight but definitely over the course of a decade we'd need to make strides to reaching 1.5-2%) and we'd need to have a concrete strategy in place (e.g. stockpiling munitions, carrying out large-scale training exercises).



Aside from the rant, I've also nothing better to do on Halloween than drunkenly look up what would possibly fill the gaps. Note, this includes mid-term "stop-gaps" to fill competencies and long-term desirability:

Air Force:
- 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period.
- A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island).
- 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs.

Army:
- 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT).
- Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet
- Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these.

Navy:
- Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class
- Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel
- Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.

I'd only add a couple of proper frigates, get a couple of cheep type 26 global combat ships while the exchange rate is good.

Jawgap

gallag wrote: »

I'd only add a couple of proper frigates, get a couple of cheep type 26 global combat ships while the exchange rate is good.

Ah sure why not add a couple of P-8 Poseidons (with a couple of boxes of SLAM-ERs and HARPOONs thrown in) :rolleyes:

....and an LPH.

.....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

.....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they

I'm fully aware, it's just my wish-list.

And you're right, we don't "need" them at the moment, but I'd rather have have a paddle and not need it than to need it and not have a paddle.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm fully aware, it's just my wish-list.

And you're right, we don't "need" them at the moment, but I'd rather have have a paddle and not need it than to need it and not have a paddle.

It's an expensive paddle!

And to pick one example why would we need tanks? And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

It's an expensive paddle!

Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right.

Jawgap wrote: »

And to pick one example why would we need tanks?

Why does any country need tanks?

Jawgap wrote: »

And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?

I'm sure there's plenty of places to zip around, the Curragh or the central plains.

Shannon757

Jawgap wrote: »

And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?

Leitrim. We don't need Leitrim

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right.

Your list is 'not that expensive"......the current flyaway price of an F-35A is about $100m, even if we got a 25% discount for bulk buying that's still $1.8 billion just for the airframes (engines cost extra!) and before you build a supporting infra-structure.

FUNFACT: Currently the RAF has more Spitfires than it has F-35s

AnGaelach wrote: »

.......

Air Force:
- 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period.
- A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island).
- 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs.

Army:
- 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT).
- Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet
- Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these.

Navy:
- Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class
- Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel
- Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why does any country need tanks?

To shoot at other tanks - are we in danger of a thunder run coming through anywhere any time soon?

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm sure there's plenty of places to zip around, the Curragh or the central plains.

that's fine for driving, but what about shooting? Maybe some of the treadheads on here can explain how far a tank shell travels?

Shannon757

Jawgap wrote: »

that's fine for driving, but what about shooting? Maybe some of the treadheads on here can explain how far a tank shell travels?

I answered this above your post.

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Your list is 'not that expensive"......the current flyaway price of an F-35A is about $100m, even if we got a 25% discount for bulk buying that's still $1.8 billion just for the airframes (engines cost extra!) and before you build a supporting infra-structure.

FUNFACT: Currently the RAF has more Spitfires than it has F-35s

And it will be still be cheaper to buy them than to buy some other antiquated aircraft that will be obsolete within a decade or two.

Jawgap wrote: »

To shoot at other tanks - are we in danger of a thunder run coming through anywhere any time soon?

No, and that's my point. You're supposed to have these things before you need them, it takes quite a while for deals to go through. Would you rather have a tank ready to go, or having to turn around and say "don't bother with the invasion now lads, give us a year or two to get things rolling so its a fair fight"?

Jawgap wrote: »

that's fine for driving, but what about shooting? Maybe some of the treadheads on here can explain how far a tank shell travels?

The Curragh is 20km^2, I'm sure there's open areas in the rest of the country that can also be utilised also.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah sure why not add a couple of P-8 Poseidons (with a couple of boxes of SLAM-ERs and HARPOONs thrown in) :rolleyes:

....and an LPH.

.....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they

You forgot the nuclear subs cause hey why go for SSKs...

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

And it will be still be cheaper to buy them than to buy some other antiquated aircraft that will be obsolete within a decade or two.

This must be the only time I've the seen the word 'cheap' used in connection with the F-35 or the 'WTF-35!', the most expensive weapons system in history!

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, and that's my point. You're supposed to have these things before you need them, it takes quite a while for deals to go through. Would you rather have a tank ready to go, or having to turn around and say "don't bother with the invasion now lads, give us a year or two to get things rolling so its a fair fight"?



The Curragh is 20km^2, I'm sure there's open areas in the rest of the country that can also be utilised also.

Yes, but why would we need a battalion of armour - under what scenario is it even remotely possible that we would need to deploy 24 MBTs??

.....and if you are thinking of using them on UN duty - how are you going to get them there, keep them supplied and maintain their serviceability?

20 square kilometers is pretty small in the context of military training areas - that's about 10% the size of Otterburn, although that is also used for artillery shoots.

Plus, 20 square kilometers represents an area 5km by 4km, or 6km by 3.3km - even if the area is 10km by 2km that's not much of a safety margin when you're firing an MBT's main armament - the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun on the Leopard 2 has an effective range of 4000m, which means it probably travels a good deal further if it doesn't slap into anything and even the Challenger 1 was good out to 5000m (the range at which one was reputed to have killed an Iraqi tank during the first Gulf War) - that 20 square kilometers is probably not looking that big, especially if you put more than one tank there......plus the Defence Forces only have manoeuvring rights over 3,284 of the 9,000 or so acres that make up the Curragh.

jocmilt

If we went out and borrowed another couple of hundred billion we could probably buy enough equipment to defend ourselves form Andorra but not against anyone who would actually attack us. The militarists know this. They only want to tool us up to be part of an EU Army battlegroup and that's not defending Ireland, it's going to be starting a war of aggression somewhere else

The Swiss militia system is the best for defending a country. Like, when was the last time Switzerland was invaded?

sparky42

jocmilt wrote: »

If we went out and borrowed another couple of hundred billion we could probably buy enough equipment to defend ourselves form Andorra but not against anyone who would actually attack us. The militarists know this. They only want to tool us up to be part of an EU Army battlegroup and that's not defending Ireland, it's going to be starting a war of aggression somewhere else

The Swiss militia system is the best for defending a country. Like, when was the last time Switzerland was invaded?

Don't be bloody ridiculous, there's a perfectly acceptable level of spending that would provide capabilities to defend Ireland that in no way means "couple of hundred billion" (FFS that's 2 entire years worth of the UK and French budgets put together:rolleyes:).

As for "EU Army Battlegroups" yes the well known aggressors like the Modern German military who can't even get a dozen Eurofighters into the air are suddenly going to demand an invasion and need Ireland to lead it.:rolleyes:

It's quite amazing that we can't seem to have a rational discussion on defence with the extremes of "it's hopeless" or "High end NATO forces" being the only options it seems.

Oh and just read up on what the Swiss invested in throughout the Cold War to have their defences, before pointing to them as the answer...

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

This must be the only time I've the seen the word 'cheap' used in connection with the F-35 or the 'WTF-35!', the most expensive weapons system in history!

Yeah, while the 35 maybe getting well after years of issues it's still crazy to suggest buying it. I mean short of planning to be part of a Day 1 attack it's not needed, any of the 4.5 gen fighters could fulfill any likely/unlikely role Ireland would need.

Yes, but why would we need a battalion of armour - under what scenario is it even remotely possible that we would need to deploy 24 MBTs??

.....and if you are thinking of using them on UN duty - how are you going to get them there, keep them supplied and maintain their serviceability?

20 square kilometers is pretty small in the context of military training areas - that's about 10% the size of Otterburn, although that is also used for artillery shoots.

Plus, 20 square kilometers represents an area 5km by 4km, or 6km by 3.3km - even if the area is 10km by 2km that's not much of a safety margin when you're firing an MBT's main armament - the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun on the Leopard 2 has an effective range of 4000m, which means it probably travels a good deal further if it doesn't slap into anything and even the Challenger 1 was good out to 5000m (the range at which one was reputed to have killed an Iraqi tank during the first Gulf War) - that 20 square kilometers is probably not looking that big, especially if you put more than one tank there......plus the Defence Forces only have manoeuvring rights over 3,284 of the 9,000 or so acres that make up the Curragh.

Arguably for anything short of "peacekeeping" with MBT's a 24 tanks isn't enough anyway, as you'd never have all of them operational (repairs/training) and wouldn't have enough numbers to do much. The issue you made about ranges is also important (with another reminder today with reports that the RAF have had an accident in Scotland), all these things are the logistical side that gets ignored when somebody looks at the sticker price of a piece of hardware and says "hey lets get that"

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

This must be the only time I've the seen the word 'cheap' used in connection with the F-35 or the 'WTF-35!', the most expensive weapons system in history!

You seemed to have missed the "er" part of that word. It is cheaper for the US to buy an entirely new fleet of F-35s than it is to keep their F-16s in service in the long-run. Similarly, countries like Norway and Denmark are also investing in them because they are going to be worth it in the medium and long-term.

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, but why would we need a battalion of armour - under what scenario is it even remotely possible that we would need to deploy 24 MBTs??

Why would Norway or Denmark need them? The answer is the same.

Jawgap wrote: »

20 square kilometers is pretty small in the context of military training areas - that's about 10% the size of Otterburn, although that is also used for artillery shoots.

Plus, 20 square kilometers represents an area 5km by 4km, or 6km by 3.3km - even if the area is 10km by 2km that's not much of a safety margin when you're firing an MBT's main armament - the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun on the Leopard 2 has an effective range of 4000m, which means it probably travels a good deal further if it doesn't slap into anything and even the Challenger 1 was good out to 5000m (the range at which one was reputed to have killed an Iraqi tank during the first Gulf War) - that 20 square kilometers is probably not looking that big, especially if you put more than one tank there......plus the Defence Forces only have manoeuvring rights over 3,284 of the 9,000 or so acres that make up the Curragh.

I am sure there's other regions of the country where training fields can be set up, somewhere out of the way with low density and open fields. Monaghan/Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath.

sparky42 wrote: »

It's quite amazing that we can't seem to have a rational discussion on defence with the extremes of "it's hopeless" or "High end NATO forces" being the only options it seems.

Because what you consider rational is the status quo plus a few more peanuts, what I consider rational is actually wanting a competent and efficient military instead of just giving such an idea lip service.

sparky42 wrote: »

Arguably for anything short of "peacekeeping" with MBT's a 24 tanks isn't enough anyway, as you'd never have all of them operational (repairs/training) and wouldn't have enough numbers to do much. The issue you made about ranges is also important (with another reminder today with reports that the RAF have had an accident in Scotland), all these things are the logistical side that gets ignored when somebody looks at the sticker price of a piece of hardware and says "hey lets get that"

And the answer to lacking capable logistics infrastructure isn't "lets ignore the problem for now and get something not quite as good", it's to solve the problem then so that we don't have to spend an inordinate amount more time and effort trying to find something that won't hamstring us.

I don't believe Ireland "can't afford" a proper air force, navy or ground force. Every country of equivalent size of us can do so, we don't have to be the "beggorah be gone sure we don't have the smarts to change" country walking around Europe with its hand out.

The Army is haemorrhaging members in engineering and medical fields. Instead of expecting them to make do with SFA, why not restore their pay and actually give them the equipment a modern, first-world military should have?

Jawgap

The F-35 is not cheap to buy, it's not cheap to run and its definitely not cheap to repair.

That other countries are buying it has more to do with the politics of procurement than anything else.

AnGaelach wrote: »

......

Why would Norway or Denmark need them? The answer is the same.

it's hard to believe that's a serious question, but assuming it is, I'm guessing it's to with the fact that both are members of NATO and both are a lot closer to Russia than we are, and that it's possible to to drive from Russia on to their territory without getting your feet wet - it's barely 1000km from Russian territory to Denmark......and the Norwegians share a land border with them.

AnGaelach wrote: »

I am sure there's other regions of the country where training fields can be set up, somewhere out of the way with low density and open fields. Monaghan/Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath.

In that case the cost of your tanks just went up - a lot. Let's say you could get by with just an area 6km by 5km and you could find such an area and everyone living there was willing to either leave voluntarily or put up with tanks charging around the place......30 square kilometers is about 7,500 acres - to buy that amount of land in Leitrim where agricultural land is cheapest (at €4,800 per acre) would cost €36 million, and that's before you build ranges, depots and roads. And there's still the cost of training, maintenance and consumables to add.

AnGaelach wrote: »

.....


And the answer to lacking capable logistics infrastructure isn't "lets ignore the problem for now and get something not quite as good", it's to solve the problem then so that we don't have to spend an inordinate amount more time and effort trying to find something that won't hamstring us.

I don't believe Ireland "can't afford" a proper air force, navy or ground force. Every country of equivalent size of us can do so, we don't have to be the "beggorah be gone sure we don't have the smarts to change" country walking around Europe with its hand out.

The Army is haemorrhaging members in engineering and medical fields. Instead of expecting them to make do with SFA, why not restore their pay and actually give them the equipment a modern, first-world military should have?

We need a Defence Force commensurate to our needs, with a bit extra to cover contingencies - we don't need fast jets or armour. We could do with something a bit bigger than the Becketts to help with UN deployments and we could do with a better maritime patrol capability.

Armies will always lose people in the technical fields as an economy grows - the Defence Forces will never be able to match the salaries on offer in the private sector - we could, however, follow the example of other countries and recruit such people to the reserves with the offer of experiences they'll never get in civilian life.