Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Jawgap

donvito99 wrote: »

For a country with different defence requirements to Ireland.

- Does the occasional marginal airspace delinquency by Russian aircraft warrant fast jets?

- Does Ireland face any conventional threat, being non-aligned and "neutral", requiring the large number of sophisticated fast jets that would be required to adequately deter such a threat?

- Does Ireland have a political/defence doctrine requiring intervention abroad that is ordinarily best conducted by fast jets?

The answer to all three is surely no. The notion of "a squadron of" whatever trainer aircraft is proposed this week, or a dozen Gripen C/Ds, isn't viable based on the above. We simply to not have the need, and if we did, we would never have the resources to appropriately meet the need.

Yes, we know......this thread is just a bit of craic and an excuse to discuss jets

ohnonotgmail

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, we know......this thread is just a bit of craic and an excuse to discuss jets

there are some who consider it a national disgrace.

I'm not convinced of the utility of the Javelin T-X . It is just a trainer with a couple of missiles bolted on. Full production doesnt even start for 9 years. It doesnt even have a gun. I thought that lesson was learned a long time ago.

Jawgap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there are some who consider it a national disgrace.

I'm not convinced of the utility of the Javelin T-X . It is just a trainer with a couple of missiles bolted on. Full production doesnt even start for 9 years. It doesnt even have a gun. I thought that lesson was learned a long time ago.

Well then they probably don't understand either the costs involved, the 'threat' we face or both

Anything with less than two engines and an inflight refueling capability is going to be pretty useless for intercepts over the ocean.

donvito99

Jawgap wrote: »

Anything with less than two engines and an inflight refueling capability is going to be pretty useless for intercepts over the ocean.

So we need tankers as well now, because apparently our sovereign airspace extends beyond the 12mile shore limit.

The Austrians can't do it, the Swiss can barely do it. The Dutch will procure half as many F35s as they have F16s, most of which are not flying. Even Germany has enormous issues with the availability of the Eurofighter.

It's a total waste of the DF's resources to buy, fly and maintain roided up trainers to wave at the occasional bomber running down the West Coast.

Silvera

The current edition of 'Air Forces Monthly' has a 3-page article about the new edition / relaunched Aero L-159.

Just sayin

Heraldoffreeent

Silvera wrote: »

The current edition of 'Air Forces Monthly' has a 3-page article about the new edition / relaunched Aero L-159.

Just sayin

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/aero-vodochody-returns-l-159-production

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/aero-vodochody-building-more-l-159s-czech-republic

http://www.janes.com/article/69286/aero-restarts-l-159-alca-production-touts-argentina-as-potential-customer

Boreas

After Brexit if the EU does finally start to move towards a common defence then that might entail a minimum spending requirement for each member, along the lines of the NATO 2% of GDP, if that happens then maybe we'll see proper naval and air force spending in Ireland. Short of that though I see no prospect of any real increase.

AnGaelach

donvito99 wrote: »

The answer to all three is surely no. The notion of "a squadron of" whatever trainer aircraft is proposed this week, or a dozen Gripen C/Ds, isn't viable based on the above. We simply to not have the need, and if we did, we would never have the resources to appropriately meet the need.

Absolute nonsense. The reason we don't have the resources is because we don't want to allocate the resources. We have an economy on-par with Denmark and Finland, for example. Finland has 54 F-18s, Denmark has 33 F-16s and is looking to actually upgrade to almost 30 F-35s.

I personally find the argument that Ireland "can't afford" a dozen fighters to be nothing more than a thin attempt at justification of our lack of care.

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. The reason we don't have the resources is because we don't want to allocate the resources. We have an economy on-par with Denmark and Finland, for example. Finland has 54 F-18s, Denmark has 33 F-16s and is looking to actually upgrade to almost 30 F-35s.

I personally find the argument that Ireland "can't afford" a dozen fighters to be nothing more than a thin attempt at justification of our lack of care.

they also have higher taxes. I'm sure most people would be against paying more taxes just to have the Air Corp whizz around in shiny jets.

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they also have higher taxes. I'm sure most people would be against paying more taxes just to have the Air Corp whizz around in shiny jets.

The maximum tax rate in Denmark is 51.95% in Ireland it's 52%, the discrepancy between our rates of income tax aren't exactly high.

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

The maximum tax rate in Denmark is 51.95% in Ireland it's 52%, the discrepancy between our rates of income tax aren't exactly high.

more to taxes than just income tax. Denmark has the highest Tax-to-GDP ratio in the OECD

Link is a PDF.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-denmark.pdf


Ireland has the lowest in europe

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eurostat-says-ireland-s-tax-to-gdp-ratio-now-lowest-in-europe-1.2885064

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

more to taxes than just income tax. Denmark has the highest Tax-to-GDP ratio in the OECD

Link is a PDF.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-denmark.pdf


Ireland has the lowest in europe

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eurostat-says-ireland-s-tax-to-gdp-ratio-now-lowest-in-europe-1.2885064

And you think our figure being distorted by a low corporation tax rate means the average person will have to pay more tax?

donvito99

But what is the need? People here are saying, bump defence spending to 2% and buy accordingly?

What are the threats, what's our doctrine, what treaty defence organisations and conflicts will we necessarily be joining to justify this level of spending and equipment?

I'm all for incremental increases in defence spending that improve and expand upon what we already do well i.e. a good constabulary, UN/EU humanitarian, SAR naval service that could reasonably be expanded to regularly deploy internationally with appropriately larger vessels; an Air Corps with effectively a dedicated army air wing (some sort of light utility helicopter -- like the EC635, we essentially fly it already -- that can be deployed overseas in a medevac, reconnaissance, basic fire support, utility transport role) and a medium lift capability (C130Js to deploy said helicopters or to logistically supply expanded -- in size and scope -- army peacekeeping deployments; an Army with a fully subscribed reserve, adequately protected vehicles, opportunities for advancement and, given the small size of our DF in any case, the best in kit.

AnGaelach

donvito99 wrote: »

But what is the need? People here are saying, bump defence spending to 2% and buy accordingly?

I didn't draw issue with you saying you don't find it worth increasing spending. What I drew issue with is you saying that we couldn't increase spending. We most certainly do have the resources to maintain a proper armed forces, we simply choose not to allocate them.

Manic Moran

You don't need a tanker to refuel over water, a buddy store would be quite sufficient. It's all about time airborne, not distance offshore.
Here, have a Finnish (population 5.5mil) Hornet refuelling, it doesn't exactly have an ocean to cover.

donvito99

Manic Moran wrote: »

You don't need a tanker to refuel over water, a buddy store would be quite sufficient. It's all about time airborne, not distance offshore.
Here, have a Finnish (population 5.5mil) Hornet refuelling, it doesn't exactly have an ocean to cover.

AFAIK the United States Navy is the sole proponent of the buddy refueling method, and the above Finnish Hornet is being refueled by a KC135.

Again, I believe it to be a question of what's the use of fighters, intercepters and attack aircraft when there is no demonstrable need for them, even if we allocated the necessary resources

AnGaelach

donvito99 wrote: »

Again, I believe it to be a question of what's the use of fighters, intercepters and attack aircraft when there is no demonstrable need for them, even if we allocated the necessary resources

By the time a need for them does arise, it'll have been too late to put in place the necessary infrastructure and acquire them/train pilots to use them. Defence planning is over a 5 or 10 year period (longer the more expensive the equipment is), politics moves at a significantly faster pace.

Think of defence as a house insurance policy. Would you rather spend the money now so that if a fire breaks out (it certainly isn't guaranteed to) you are covered by your policy, would you rather rush around as the fire breaks out to try and solve it? Or do you simply stomach the loss of your property?

Buying fighters isn't an enormously expensive thing, especially if we copy the Central Europeans and hire them from someone else.

We spent like €200 million on a Christmas bonus for people on the dole, the cost of a dozen fighters is €80 million.

beauf

I think you will have a hard time selling the idea of spending the dole money on fighters as an insurance policy.

Manic Moran

donvito99 wrote: »

AFAIK the United States Navy is the sole proponent of the buddy refueling method, and the above Finnish Hornet is being refueled by a KC135.

That one is, yes, but it's worth noting that they do retain the ability to use the system.

Other nations have been known to play with the system...



Given that Ireland would never have any significant number of fighters, there's something to be said for having a system to allow what few that would be present to stay up for longer.

Jawgap

Manic Moran wrote: »

That one is, yes, but it's worth noting that they do retain the ability to use the system.

Other nations have been known to play with the system...



Given that Ireland would never have any significant number of fighters, there's something to be said for having a system to allow what few that would be present to stay up for longer.

The problem is that all any intruding aircraft needs to do is turn west and then the buddy system breaks down. My understanding of that system is that it allows aircraft to reduce their take-off weight, then take on the fuel they need aloft.

The Brits, when they launch the Tiffies on an intercept nearly always get a Voyage aloft (at least with the relief pair) to make sure the interception aircraft have the endurance to stay with the intruder.

Silvera

While the ideal scenario for Ireland would be to have Gripens (with or without the buddy system or tanker refuelling), is it realistically going to happen in the forseeable future?
I suspect that 'fighters' are well down the list of priorities when it comes to the Air Corps fleet renewal.

At present we have NO realistic ability to patrol/police our airspace.
Any aircraft can fly through our airspace safe in the knowledge that no Irish aircraft will pull alongside to inspect them for whatever reason (I am aware that the PC-9's are capabable of very limited/restricted intercepts).

Therefore, would it not be sensible to lower our expectations when it comes to purchasing possible jet aircraft and accept a cheaper alternative to Gripens which would at least provide the Air Corps with the capability to regularly patrol our airspace and - at the very least - provide it with the means to 'hassle' any intruding/unresponsive/'off-the-radar' aircraft in our airspace? My 2c

ezra_

Do we have the capability to detect and analyse what planes are flying through Irish air space?

I remember the papers saying that Russian bombers were messing around with the Brits over Irish air space, and that we wouldn't know unless someone told us.

Silvera

ezra_ wrote: »

Do we have the capability to detect and analyse what planes are flying through Irish air space?

I remember the papers saying that Russian bombers were messing around with the Brits over Irish air space, and that we wouldn't know unless someone told us.

When Coveney was in Defence he stated that we needed/would get a €10million military radar system to cover our airspace.

At present Ireland only has a limited-coverage civil radar system.

donvito99

Provision for a primary radar for the AC was announced and a DoD Ministerial Brief confirms that they're looking into it essentially. You would also need controllers trained above and beyond the ordinary ATController, and the AC hasn't the resources for 24/7 controlled operations in any case. Lots to be funded before we approach anything near the things other small air forces consider bread and butter taskings.

Also, the Aviation forum accounted for the visit of a KC390 from Paris yesterday. Might give the new AC GoC something to shout about.

Leonidas BL

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there are some who consider it a national disgrace.

I'm not convinced of the utility of the Javelin T-X . It is just a trainer with a couple of missiles bolted on. Full production doesnt even start for 9 years. It doesnt even have a gun. I thought that lesson was learned a long time ago.

Thats funny, it clearly states that it carrys a gun, and the missiles are carried internally, not ''bolted on''

Armed with two internally carried AIM-9X Sidewinders, an internal gun and fitted with both a compact AESA radar and a comprehensive electronic warfare suite.

donvito99

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Thats funny, it clearly states that it carrys a gun, and the missiles are carried internally, not ''bolted on''

AIM 9X has garnered some bad press of late in failing to hit a Su22.

So if this was to be a serious exercise in defence, we would need something that isn't flummoxed by Russian flares. That likely means something more expensive. "Expensive" is a word that keeps cropping up. So at this rate, may as well fork out for the Gripen. It's more than an interceptor I.e. more than we seem to require doctrinally, but its no compromise. The greatest selling point for the Gripen lease is that it already works for the Czechs and the Hungarians. I don't think the A.C. would want to be the first to break in a drawing board trainer/interceptor.

Leonidas BL

donvito99 wrote: »

AIM 9X has garnered some bad press of late in failing to hit a Su22.

So if this was to be a serious exercise in defence, we would need something that isn't flummoxed by Russian flares. That likely means something more expensive. "Expensive" is a word that keeps cropping up. So at this rate, may as well fork out for the Gripen. It's more than an interceptor I.e. more than we seem to require doctrinally, but its no compromise. The greatest selling point for the Gripen lease is that it already works for the Czechs and the Hungarians. I don't think the A.C. would want to be the first to break in a drawing board trainer/interceptor.

Apparently the AIM 9X was tested against american flares which have different characteristics to Russian flares. It is after all the most advanced heat seeking missile out there and light years ahead of anything we have so Im sure they will iron that out.
Everyone would love a few Saab Gripens policing our sky's but they are kinda overkill and lets face it, our useless politicians will never agree to it.

Sgt. Bilko 09

KC390 was flying with air corps personnel onboard and a IAC procurement representative at the airfield.
Both Casa's are to be replaced in 2019.
Also, one more PC-9 is due for delivery along with Cessna s to be scrapped.
Coveney stated that we need upgraded IAC as we are over reliant on the RAF in that area.
Maybe hinting at a jet but again it's the Irish government so it's all talk for now.
Knowing a person who is in the air corps, apparently it was embarrassment for the IAC to have to request to lease an aircraft from US to provide top cover as we didnt have any the sufficent equipment required when Obama came here. I didn't know we had to that.

Sgt. Bilko 09

KC390 was flying with air corps personnel onboard and a IAC procurement representative at the airfield.
Both Casa's are to be replaced in 2019.
Also, one more PC-9 is due for delivery along with Cessna s to be scrapped.
Coveney stated that we need upgraded IAC as we are over reliant on the RAF in that area.
Maybe hinting at a jet but again it's the Irish government so it's all talk for now.
Knowing a person who is in the air corps, apparently it was embarrassment for the IAC to have to request to lease an aircraft from US to provide top cover as we didnt have any the sufficent equipment required when Obama came here. I didn't know we had to that.
Judging by the video and the runway that is at baldonell it seems to be a test takeoff.

Footage here credit to David MC Laughlin YouTube

https://youtu.be/QGCBAzjAfa8

sparky42

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

KC390 was flying with air corps personnel onboard and a IAC procurement representative at the airfield.
Both Casa's are to be replaced in 2019.
Also, one more PC-9 is due for delivery along with Cessna s to be scrapped.
Coveney stated that we need upgraded IAC as we are over reliant on the RAF in that area.
Maybe hinting at a jet but again it's the Irish government so it's all talk for now.
Knowing a person who is in the air corps, apparently it was embarrassment for the IAC to have to request to lease an aircraft from US to provide top cover as we didnt have any the sufficent equipment required when Obama came here. I didn't know we had to that.

If the Air Corps is dumb enough to once more be a launch customer for an airframe they deserve a beating, given the current rate of development the KC390 would have at best limited numbers in service by the time the 235's need replacing. Most likely it's the 295 on a one for one replacement, maybe if we're lucky a transport variant as well.

The PC9 is due this year (already fitting out I think), and the Tender is out for the Cessna replacements, (most likely the PC 12), so a couple of years from now.

Coveney was talking about setting up Primary Radar Capability, the idea of "jet" whatever you mean (presuming something to handle interceptions) is far down the list (even further when you consider all the other things on the DF Capital list at the same time).

As to your comment about Obama's visit, we wouldn't have "leased" anything, the US would have provided the security operations for a US President's visit.