Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

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.



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.

Moreover the idea that "only" the 35 could be acceptable is nonsense, of the 4.5's the USN is still buying the Superhornet and Growler platforms and will remain in service for at least 20 years (and has an identified upgrade path), Singapore and ROK bought new F15's within the last decade, the F16 Viper was bought within the decade as well, while the Eurofighter just got a new order for 20 odd latest builds from one of the Arab nations, India is still looking at getting the Rafale and Brazil and Sweden are moving forward with a new mark of the Gripen. All of these airframes are going to be in service with top level militaries for at least the next 2 decades if not longer based on current spending and will be continuously upgraded. Any of them would be vastly more platform than we need.

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.

Pretty much, for the Army replacing the Mowags with more modern variants and newer ones (and more of them) would be massive. For the Air Corps, not just MPA, but Medium Helicopters that are deployable for foreign operations/Maritime based, and for the Navy something bigger/better defended than the OPV's that we have. Depending on what we would go for even those wouldn't be cheap however they would vastly improve the DF.

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right.



Why does any country need tanks?



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

Explain what you think the role of a MBT like the leopard 2 would be in Irish service. If you envision them as a defensive force then what consideration have you given to where they can operate in this country given their weight of nearly 70T? have you considered the number of bridges that would have to be upgraded to take that weight? have you considered how long they would take to get to an invading force? How many do you think would last until they got into contact given that we would not have air superiority, even with the proposed F35 purchase. and dont get me started on the proposed purchase of subs. what we do with diesel subs is beyond comprehension.

sparky42

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.

You do realise that a) the 26 is still "vapourware" with it slipping further and further and b)even with the pull through from the 23 is looking like you aren't getting much change out of a billion a piece. Even with the drop in Sterling it's not viable to look.

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

And how likely to you think war between NATO and Russia is? Do they have those tanks because they anticipate war with Russia, or because they are taking precautionary measures?

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

We are spending €220 million on Christmas welfare bonuses in the 2017 budget, don't act like €36 million is an inordinately large amount. White papers are spaced out over 5-10 year periods, so assuming we run with a 10 year procurement strategy for the DF, that training field is about €3.6 million a year.

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

How on earth can you say we don't need fast jets? The entire point of having an Air Corps is so that it has the capacity to respond to emergencies as they arise.

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

Relying on a reserves force to meet skill shortages when you have a primary force incapable of operating as it should, you're setting yourself up for a disaster.

AnGaelach

sparky42 wrote: »

Moreover the idea that "only" the 35 could be acceptable is nonsense <snip>.

Do find a quote where I said such. I said it is desirable to have the F-35 by simple virtue of it being more advanced than other aircraft and that the US projects replacing their fleet with F-35s will work out cheaper for them in the long run - even with the budget overruns.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Explain what you think the role of a MBT like the leopard 2 would be in Irish service. If you envision them as a defensive force then what consideration have you given to where they can operate in this country given their weight of nearly 70T? have you considered the number of bridges that would have to be upgraded to take that weight? have you considered how long they would take to get to an invading force?

The Comet was ~35 tonnes, the Leopard being double is an issue but not as big an issue as you make it out to be. Yes, bridges would have to be strengthened and roads potentially re-covered, but again, do you think €220 million can be spent on Christmas bonuses yet spending money on capital projects to be an insurmountably expensive task?

If Finland (with near the same population and near the same Government budget) can afford 200 Leopard 2s despite having much more lakes and rivers than we do, we can easily afford to equip the DF with them.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How many do you think would last until they got into contact given that we would not have air superiority, even with the proposed F35 purchase.

You don't need air superiority, you need to deny the airspace to their aircraft, and having MBTs is a logical choice to have.

Army A is invading. Army B is defending.

Army A deploys MBTs. Army B doesn't have them so has to give ground or deploy something else. If they give ground, they're on the back foot and losing the war.

So, assume Army B decides to deploy helicopters. Army A deploys theirs to counter it. Army B deploys fast jets to counter that, Army A deploys theirs to counter that.

Isn't it much less of a head pain if Army B had their own MBTs?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and dont get me started on the proposed purchase of subs. what we do with diesel subs is beyond comprehension.

The Ula-class is one of the quietest subs rocking around. What other type of sub you'd expect except conventional powered ones is beyond comprehension.

sparky42

AnGaelach wrote: »

Do find a quote where I said such. I said it is desirable to have the F-35 by simple virtue of it being more advanced than other aircraft and that the US projects replacing their fleet with F-35s will work out cheaper for them in the long run - even with the budget overruns.

They are replacing their fleets as a) they are the nation that has to be able to provide Day 1 combat capabilities against a peer nation, and b) because they HAVE to build said jets both due to age of their fleets, and the need to keep the companies building jets. It's why they are already funding 6th Gen studies. That doesn't mean it's the best choice for nations that aren't in the business of launching major air interventions.

We are never going to be in such a situation and frankly the suggestion of the numbers you put forward is like one of those third world dictators that buys the fancy jets and then lets them rot due to budgets.

Any 4.5 Gen airframe (which at best would number 2-3 squadrons) will provide this nation with every reasonable level of capability, unless you can put forward any situation where we are penetrating a hostile airspace of current airdefences...

The Ula-class is one of the quietest subs rocking around. What other type of sub you'd expect except conventional powered ones is beyond comprehension.

The Ula class is coming up on it's end of life and the replacement project is already spinning up. It may very well have been one of the quietest when it entered service but now coming up to 25 years into service compared to the newer generation SSK's that's a joke (212/214 class, Soryu class), not too mention they are relatively coastal boats compared to the modern large SSK's that are Western Standard. Moreover simple age and wear and tear would make them noisy hulls with fatigue issues (Subs have a limited hull life due to compression), with the Norwegian's already committed to decommissioning them as running them to 35 years would require a complete rebuild.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

And how likely to you think war between NATO and Russia is? Do they have those tanks because they anticipate war with Russia, or because they are taking precautionary measures?

Not very likely and even if it does happen why would we need tanks? The economic fallout from one Russian tank crossing into NATO territory will scupper us. Anyway, do you think the Russians are capable of getting this far?

Do you think a country with a continental tradition of warfare, and with an economy that is now the size of Mexico (or Spain) is capable of crossing Europe, launching 2 amphibious operations (assuming they're not going to by-pass the UK) at the end of hugely extended lines just to get to little ol' us?

AnGaelach wrote: »

We are spending €220 million on Christmas welfare bonuses in the 2017 budget, don't act like €36 million is an inordinately large amount. White papers are spaced out over 5-10 year periods, so assuming we run with a 10 year procurement strategy for the DF, that training field is about €3.6 million a year.

the difference is most of that €220 million will come back into the government coffers because it will be spent - it will generate economic activity far in excess of the amount and tax revenues as it circulates in the economy.

The €36million will be a sunk cost, and if you think a €36 million public procurement project spread over 10 years is €3.6million per year you've failed to grasp the fundamentals of the time value of money. If it was built as a PPP and leased by the DF over 20 year period, then the usual rule of thumb is three times the capital cost divided by the rental period, meaning it would cost €5.4 million per year or €108 million over the lease.

AnGaelach wrote: »

How on earth can you say we don't need fast jets? The entire point of having an Air Corps is so that it has the capacity to respond to emergencies as they arise.

Yes, and their most important mission is aid to the civil power, so a beefed up helicopter fleet and maritime patrol capability would be a good investment.

As an aside I was in Drogheda on Tuesday when the Air Corps air lifted a guy who'd been seriously hurt on a building site
- the skill of the heli pilot landing where he did was pretty impressive and the lift off even more so - that's the type of pilot and skill mix the Air Corps needs, not "Maverick and Goose."

AnGaelach wrote: »

Relying on a reserves force to meet skill shortages when you have a primary force incapable of operating as it should, you're setting yourself up for a disaster.

No, it's not really - you just use your reserves to fill out the technical posts - meaning you get the best of both worlds, people who have up to date technical skills who look to soldier, and history is replete with examples of civvies who were given uniforms so they could use their skills to support an army or marine force......the seabees in the Pacific, the RE tunnelling companies in WW1, even the US Army's 10th Mountain Division started off with recruiting skiers and mountaineers from civilian clubs - in other words they recruited skiers and mountaineers and turned them into soldiers, rather than the other way around.

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

The Comet was ~35 tonnes, the Leopard being double is an issue but not as big an issue as you make it out to be. Yes, bridges would have to be strengthened and roads potentially re-covered, but again, do you think €220 million can be spent on Christmas bonuses yet spending money on capital projects to be an insurmountably expensive task?

not when those capital projects are not required. why spend money on capital projects for equipment we dont need?

AnGaelach wrote: »

If Finland (with near the same population and near the same Government budget) can afford 200 Leopard 2s despite having much more lakes and rivers than we do, we can easily afford to equip the DF with them.

We are not finland. we do not share a border with russia. an invasion by russia is within living memory of the finns

AnGaelach wrote: »

You don't need air superiority, you need to deny the airspace to their aircraft,

and you think you can do that with a handful of f-35s?

AnGaelach wrote: »

and having MBTs is a logical choice to have.

Army A is invading. Army B is defending.

Army A deploys MBTs. Army B doesn't have them so has to give ground or deploy something else. If they give ground, they're on the back foot and losing the war.

So, assume Army B decides to deploy helicopters. Army A deploys theirs to counter it. Army B deploys fast jets to counter that, Army A deploys theirs to counter that.

Isn't it much less of a head pain if Army B had their own MBTs?

what is the end result of all this? do you think we can drive an invading army back into the sea with our 24 leopard 2s? do you think we can win against any country capable of launching a seaborne invasion?

AnGaelach wrote: »

The Ula-class is one of the quietest subs rocking around. What other type of sub you'd expect except conventional powered ones is beyond comprehension.

you will have to tell me what you think we will do with subs before i can tell you what type i expect.


the thread in its current form belongs in the Walter Mitty forum.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

.......

Army A is invading. Army B is defending.

Army A deploys MBTs. Army B doesn't have them so has to give ground or deploy something else. If they give ground, they're on the back foot and losing the war.

So, assume Army B decides to deploy helicopters. Army A deploys theirs to counter it. Army B deploys fast jets to counter that, Army A deploys theirs to counter that.

Isn't it much less of a head pain if Army B had their own MBTs?
......

Actually, if you look at some of the footage coming from around Mosul at the moment you'll see that a defending force doesn't need to engage in tank-on-tank combat. The defenders there are doing just fine with their Kornet ATGMs.....also if you look at how the Israelis (no slouches when it comes to using armour) fared against the unarmoured Hezbollah in 2006 you get an idea of what a motivated individual with an ATGM can do - in fact to mitigate the threat of ATGMs you need a decent active protection system, something to add to the cost your tanks.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, if you look at some of the footage coming from around Mosul at the moment you'll see that a defending force doesn't need to engage in tank-on-tank combat. The defenders there are doing just fine with their Kornet ATGMs.....also if you look at how the Israelis (no slouches when it comes to using armour) fared against the unarmoured Hezbollah in 2006 you get an idea of what a motivated individual with an ATGM can do - in fact to mitigate the threat of ATGMs you need a decent active protection system, something to add to the cost your tanks.

There's that, there's also the point that any amphibious force would most likely have attack helicopters/FJ to add to the threat environment, and the fact that as I've said something like 2 dozen MBT's realistically have limited tactical value, most likely such numbers could field 18 (training/maintenance) at any given time which isn't going to stop anything that is based on an invasion force.

An investment in Army forces should be in the area of the replacement of the MOWAGs with more modern variants and in greater number as they are more portable and able to deploy which would be the likely need for Army units, not MBT's that need a C 17 level of airlift, or significant sealift.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the thread in its current form belongs in the Walter Mitty forum.

I'd argue that there are some rational points that have been made in the thread over the length of it, where we could improve capabilities that are needed and are rational, though the current section is Walter I'd agree.

gallag

Honestly can't see tanks being a priority for Ireland, subs and ships with anti air, being a non offensive island it should concentrate on stopping the enemy from landing, perhaps get involved in submersible drones? Ships that can position mines and act in a anti submarine roll, and at least 2 main frigates with any air and anti sub capabilities.

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Not very likely and even if it does happen why would we need tanks? The economic fallout from one Russian tank crossing into NATO territory will scupper us. Anyway, do you think the Russians are capable of getting this far?

It's not Russia alone that you have to worry about. 100 years ago, people wouldn't have thought we'd have fought Britain

Jawgap wrote: »

the difference is most of that €220 million will come back into the government coffers because it will be spent - it will generate economic activity far in excess of the amount and tax revenues as it circulates in the economy.

The €36million will be a sunk cost, and if you think a €36 million public procurement project spread over 10 years is €3.6million per year you've failed to grasp the fundamentals of the time value of money. If it was built as a PPP and leased by the DF over 20 year period, then the usual rule of thumb is three times the capital cost divided by the rental period, meaning it would cost €5.4 million per year or €108 million over the lease.

Because you think landowners in Leitrim wouldn't be spending their money? You think the 36 million would just up and vanish from the economy?

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not when those capital projects are not required. why spend money on capital projects for equipment we dont need?

Reinforcing bridges is a bad thing? Why spend €220 million on Christmas bonuses when we don't need them?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We are not finland. we do not share a border with russia. an invasion by russia is within living memory of the finns

And being part of Britain is within living memory of the Irish. Again, I'm not solely talking about Russia, but any possible threat.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the end result of all this? do you think we can drive an invading army back into the sea with our 24 leopard 2s? do you think we can win against any country capable of launching a seaborne invasion?

The tanks are there for creating the logistic footprint and infrastructure needed in order to be capable of buying more. That's why I added an addendum about being able to upgrade to the Leopard 3 if and when it comes out, not to mention the other variants they use like IED removal.

What's easier, starting from scratch or expanding on infrastructure we already have?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you will have to tell me what you think we will do with subs before i can tell you what type i expect.

What else do you think you can possibly use a submarine for? Fisheries patrol?

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

It's not Russia alone that you have to worry about. 100 years ago, people wouldn't have thought we'd have fought Britain

Ah come on......you're not seriously suggesting the UK is going to roll across the border and / or launch amphibious operations? Seriously??

And even if they were, or there was even the remotest possibility of them doing so what good would the 24 tanks you suggested we buy against a country that can field 3 times that number of attack helis?

Time to stop digging.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because you think landowners in Leitrim wouldn't be spending their money? You think the 36 million would just up and vanish from the economy?

Oh no, Irish farmers are well known for their spendthrift ways so I'm sure they'd spend every last cent :rolleyes:

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

......

What else do you think you can possibly use a submarine for? Fisheries patrol?

Yes, because operating subs in the vicinity of fishing vessels never, ever caused anyone any problems........

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah come on......you're not seriously suggesting the UK is going to roll across the border and / or launch amphibious operations? Seriously??

And even if they were, or there was even the remotest possibility of them doing so what good would the 24 tanks you suggested we buy against a country that can field 3 times that number of attack helis?

Time to stop digging.

Hey it's been a while since we've had a "the English are the enemy!" here, and forget what the 24 could do, nothing he's suggested could stop the UK if it wanted to spend the effort to role over us.

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, because operating subs in the vicinity of fishing vessels never, ever caused anyone any problems........

You didn't sense the tone did you?

AnGaelach

sparky42 wrote: »

Hey it's been a while since we've had a "the English are the enemy!" here, and forget what the 24 could do, nothing he's suggested could stop the UK if it wanted to spend the effort to role over us.

No, but as you like to complain, the logistics and infrastructure isn't in place for us to maintain a large fleet of anything. So by maintaining a small fleet, we are building on that capability.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

You didn't sense the tone did you?

Well what possible use would we have for subs?

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah come on......you're not seriously suggesting the UK is going to roll across the border and / or launch amphibious operations? Seriously??

No, just as I don't believe Russia is going to be launching amphibious invasions, but a point was raised that Finland has tanks because they remember fighting the Russians. The same logic can be applied to our relationship with the British.

Jawgap wrote: »

And even if they were, or there was even the remotest possibility of them doing so what good would the 24 tanks you suggested we buy against a country that can field 3 times that number of attack helis?

Again, see post above.

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh no, Irish farmers are well known for their spendthrift ways so I'm sure they'd spend every last cent :rolleyes:

Even assuming that they do save it (which I don't think they would), you know those savings are loaned out by banks? Unless of course you think Podge and Máire are going to be sticking their money under their mattress.

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

Well what possible use would we have for subs?

What possible use does Portugal have for them?

sparky42

AnGaelach wrote: »

What possible use does Portugal have for them?

It's a NATO member, it also has an extremely dated fleet in other regards.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, just as I don't believe Russia is going to be launching amphibious invasions, but a point was raised that Finland has tanks because they remember fighting the Russians. The same logic can be applied to our relationship with the British.



Again, see post above.



Even assuming that they do save it (which I don't think they would), you know those savings are loaned out by banks? Unless of course you think Podge and Máire are going to be sticking their money under their mattress.

Finland and Russia's relationship operates on a completely different dynamic to Anglo-Irish relations.

And even if we were operating on the same dynamic, what possible use would we have for 24 tanks? Even the Israelis in their part of the world are moving away from tanks, the Merkava (arguably the best tank in the world) will likely be gradually replaced with the Eitan wheeled FV and will weigh a little bit more half what the current MkIV weighs - maybe its worth considering that if the Israelis are shifting towards FVs we really don't need tanks?

sparky42

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, but as you like to complain, the logistics and infrastructure isn't in place for us to maintain a large fleet of anything. So by maintaining a small fleet, we are building on that capability.

Which is a POINTLESS investment for a pointless Capability, that's just "dick waving". You need critical mass of units to be worth anything, that's why expansion/upgrade of IFV units makes sense (ie larger numbers of newer units), a couple of dozen MBT's with the "idea" of having a core doesn't.

Jawgap

Mind you, if we had a few ol' tanks we could scatter them around Dublin tomorrow during the Garda strike

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

What possible use does Portugal have for them?

sparky42 wrote: »

It's a NATO member, it also has an extremely dated fleet in other regards.

i've been on a portugese diesel sub. very das boot. I imagine their strategic value is limited

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Mind you, if we had a few ol' tanks we could scatter them around Dublin tomorrow during the Garda strike

Might be a bit of overkill for traffic stops though...

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i've been on a portugese diesel sub. very das boot. I imagine their strategic value is limited

SSK's would be more tactical than strategic due to their limited transit speed and weapons load compared to SSN's, however in choke points they would have value and are cheaper as hell than the SSN's

Dublin_Gunner

Considering the direction some of the fantastical suggestions have gone in this thread, I'm going to throw in my 2c.

Let's just buy some nukes. Even just 1 and hide it in a farmer's field somewhere (say Leitrim, as it's quite topical in this discussion, and pretty central).

There's the deterrent.

No need for any of the rest of that fanciful crap like tanks or aircraft.

Should only cost a couple 100 mil a year to maintain.